Clarifying a frequently invoked provision in civil trials, the Supreme Court has defined the operational ambit of Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) through its recent ruling, holding that a judgment may be rendered on admissions made by a party “either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing,” and that the provision can be invoked suo motu by the Court. The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan delivered the ruling on April 7, 2025, in a landlord-tenant dispute arising under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
The case originated from an eviction suit instituted by the respondent-landlord, following the petitioner’s failure to vacate the premises despite the expiry of five years from the death of the original tenant, the petitioner’s father, in 2016. A notice of eviction had been issued in 2018, yet the petitioner continued in occupation till 2021, prompting the institution of civil proceedings. The Trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of specific admissions made by the petitioner in his written statement. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the High Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the principal question was whether the decree passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was sustainable in view of the admissions relied upon by the lower courts. The petitioner sought to challenge the application of Rule 6, contending inter alia that he was not governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and therefore retained the right to continue in possession as the legal heir of the deceased tenant.
The Court dismissed this line of argument, observing: “We are afraid, we are not impressed with the submission canvassed by the learned counsel as noted above. We take notice of the fact that this point was never raised or argued before the High Court. We wonder if it was at all argued even before the trial court.”
Referring to para 9 of the petitioner’s own reply to the Order XII Rule 6 application, where the petitioner had invoked Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act to seek relief, the bench noted that such conduct itself belied the petitioner’s argument that the statute was inapplicable.
The ruling traced the evolution and interpretation of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, particularly in light of the 1976 Amendment, which clarified that admissions could be considered not just from pleadings but also dehors them, whether oral or written. Drawing from established precedent, the Court emphasized that:
“The words ‘or otherwise’ are wide enough to include all cases of admissions made in the pleadings or de hors the pleadings… Such admissions may be express or implied (constructive); may be in writing or oral; or may be before the institution of the suit, after the suit is brought or during the pendency of proceedings.”
The Court reiterated the binding authority of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India (2000), where it was held that the provision empowers the Court to deliver a judgment “on a plain admission of the opposite party.” Likewise, the Delhi High Court’s ruling in ITDC Ltd. v. Chander Pal Sood and Son (2000), was quoted with approval: “Order 12, R. 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion to the Court… whether orally or in writing.”
The bench also referred to historical English and Indian decisions such as Brown v. Pearson, (1882), and Beeny, re, (1894), in interpreting that a party may be held to admissions made not only in pleadings but in any form of unequivocal expression, including statements recorded under Order X Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
On the procedural aspect, the Court clarified that it is no longer necessary for a party to file an application under Order XII Rule 6; the Court may invoke it suo motu, stating:
“Rule 6 of Order XII, before the amendment, allowed judgment on admission only on an application by a party. The Law Commission, however, suggested that a judgment may be pronounced either on an application by a party or even suo motu… This rule authorizes the court to enter a judgment where a claim is admitted and to pass a decree on such admitted claim. This can be done at any stage.”
On the execution of such judgments, the Court noted that Rule 6(2) mandates the court to draw up a decree in accordance with the judgment, and that such decrees may be preliminary or final, depending on the nature of the admission. In instances of partial admissions, the Court acknowledged the possibility of “two decrees: (i) in respect of admitted claim; and (ii) in respect of ‘non-admitted’ or contested claim.”
Concluding the judgment, the Court held that no error, legal or factual, had been committed by the High Court in affirming the trial court’s decree:
“We are of the view having regard to the clear and unequivocal admission made by the defendant in his written statement, the High Court committed no error much less any error of law in decreeing the suit applying Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.”
In a directive likely to shape judicial practice, the bench ordered that: “Registry shall circulate one copy each of this order to all the High Courts and the High Courts in turn shall circulate the order in their respective District judiciary.”
Picture Source :
