Commercial litigations and arbitrations are both marred by significant amounts of delay while dilatory gimmicks are not frowned upon by Courts and Tribunals. The procedures are exhausting and a defenseless defendant seeks shelter of the procedures to an extent where the substantive case is shunted to sidelines.

While the plaintiff relentlessly pursues the litigation; recourse to the provisions under Rule 6 of Order 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 [“Code”] is seldom taken. This is one provision in the Code, which gives a freeway to the parties to get a part of the dispute adjudicated in a swift manner before the other issues are decided. The provision is not restricted to adjudication of issues of law; but also on facts. The only requirement is the ‘admission’ of such fact by the other party. While the Code is oft-criticized for making the procedure complex, this provision takes away the complications and can potentially de-clutter an otherwise convoluted suit. 

Rule 6 of Order 12 reads as under:

“6. Judgment on admissions.

(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn upon in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.”

Rule 6 of Order 12 was amended in the year 1976 with the following object mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons: 

“Clause 65, sub-clause (ii)- Under Rule 6, where a claim is admitted, the Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on the admitted claim. The object of the rule is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment at least to the extent of relief to which, according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. The rule is wide enough to cover oral admissions. The rule is being amended to clarify that oral admissions are also covered by the rule."

The provision is aimed at reducing the complexity of litigation by deciding issues that are not in dispute and are admitted. While contentious issues remain at large before the court, issues based on admissions of facts can be decided by course to the provisions contained in Rule 6 of Order 12.  

The intent and essence of the provision clearly is to avoid wastage of judicial time in matters that are otherwise not in dispute. To further this objective, the provision confers a significant amount of discretion on the courts. The provision does not restrict the applicability of the provision only to the admissions made by the parties in pleadings before that court; but enables the court to take into consideration any admission made by the parties either in pleadings or otherwise, such as in exchange of communications. Significantly, even undisputed oral admissions can also form the basis for a judgment under this provision.

The provision also empowers the court to act suo motu in this regard. Therefore, there is no requirement to make a formal application in this regard.

The Courts have, however, added a caveat to be read into the provision concerning “an unequivocal admission." The Supreme Court in the case of Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao held that an admission is not conclusive as to the truth of the matters stated therein and is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to be erroneous or untrue, so long as the person to whom it was made has not acted upon it to his detriment, when it might become conclusive by way of estoppel.

Moreover, an admission must be taken as a whole, and it is not permissible for the court to rely on one part of the admission while ignoring the other [Dudh Nath Pandey v. Suresh Chandra Bhattasali]. Thus, if an admission is explained by the party, such explanation is necessarily required to be factored in while weighing the admission.

The Supreme Court has also held in the case of Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. that the admission should be categorical.

"It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6, being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore, unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest the claim. In short, the discretion should be used only when there is a clear 'admission' which can be acted upon," the Court held.

Thus, although the powers of a court to pass a judgment based on admissions are untrammeled, the provisions are not mandatory but directory. Hence, courts could refuse to pass a judgment based on admissions when the court is of the opinion that it is not safe to pass a judgment on admissions, or that a case involves questions which cannot be appropriately dealt with and decided on the basis of admissions [Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal].

Even the law available on this provision is not as elaborate and shows the scant recourse to this provision. With the litigations becoming more and more complex, it would still be preferable to apply for a judgment on some of the issues, when admissions are made by the other party.

About the author: Kunal J Vyas is a Partner at Gandhi Law Associates.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.