Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Sheikh Abedin – Petitioner
Versus
Iqbal Ahmed & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).19868 of 2022 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-09-2022 in RSA No.92 of 2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi]
Decided On : 07-05-2026
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – Judgment on admission – Decree can be passed under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admission, whether it is contained in pleadings or elsewhere – Such admission may be in writing or may even be oral – No particular form of admission is necessary – Purport of Rule 6 Order XII CPC is to enable the party to obtain speedy justice to the extent of relevant admission which, according to admission of other party, he is entitled for – Admission on which Judgment can be claimed must be clear and unequivocal one and such admission must be either of entire claim made in suit or even for a party of claim for which decree can be passed separately – Concurrent findings recorded by three courts below upheld. (Paras 14, 15, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Present petition arises from judgment and order passed by High Court of Delhi dated 22.09.2022 in Regular Second Appeal No.92/2022 preferred by petitioner before Court by which Second Appeal came to be dismissed by High Court thereby affirming original judgment and decree passed by trial court and also judgment and order passed by First Appellate Court.
Entire debate revolves around question whether courts-below were justified to decree suit in favour of plaintiffs on strength of admission made by petitioner in course of criminal proceedings and whether trial court was justified to pass final decree based on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Findings of Court:
On the aspect of admission on part of petitioner, three courts have assigned cogent reasons. We need not disturb concurrent findings recorded by three courts-below in this regard.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
ORDER
1. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 22.09.2022 in Regular Second Appeal No.92/2022 preferred by the petitioner before us by which the Second Appeal came to be dismissed by the High Court thereby affirming the original judgment and decree passed by the trial court and also the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court.
2. It appears from the materials on record that the respondents (original plaintiffs) before us instituted Civil Suit No.1162/2019 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to an open plot of land bearing No.P-229 out of Khasra No.431/260 Joga Bai Extension, Nafis Road, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, Batla House, New Delhi ad measuring 260 Sq. Yards.
3. It is the case of the original plaintiff that the subject plot was purchased by them from one Shri Dilbar Husain Malik by way of a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Affidavit respectively dated 27.11.2000 for a total sale consideration of Rs.80,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, the appellant before us was appointed as a caretaker / Chowkidar of the subject plot. According to the plaintiffs, the petitioner was permitted to stay in the suit property so that the property could also be taken care of. When time came for the petitioner (defendant) to vacate, he declined and that led to the filing of the suit praying for the following reliefs:-
b) To permanently restrain the defendants from raising any construction over the suit property i.e. plot bearing No. P-229 out of khasra No. 431/260 Joga Bai Extension, Nafis Road, Jamia Nagar, Okhla batla House, New Delhi.
c) To permanently restrain the defendants and their agents from creating any third party interest in respect of the suit property i.e. plot bearing No. P-229 out of khasra No.431/260 Joga Bai, Nafis Road, Jamia Nagar, Okhla batla House, New Delhi.
d) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deem, fit and proper in the above said facts and circumstances.”
4. In the Civil Suit instituted by the plaintiffs, an application came to be preferred by the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”). In the said application, the plaintiffs prayed for the following reliefs:-
Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
5. On the strength of the application preferred by the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Civil Court proceeded to pass the final decree vide order dated 16.10.2020. The operative part of the order passed by the trial court reads thus:-
9. Plaintiff is, thus, entitled to a decree as prayed for in clause “A” of the plaint. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed and the defendant is directed to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of th
Judgment on admission – Decree in suit in favour of plaintiffs can be passed on strength of admission made by petitioner in course of criminal proceedings.
A court may pass a judgment or decree based on clear and unequivocal admissions made by a party in any form, including oral or written statements made in other proceedings (such as criminal complaint....
A decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC requires clear, unconditional admissions of fact, which were absent in this case.
For judgment under Order XII Rule 6, admissions must be clear and unconditional; conditional admissions do not suffice.
Decree on admission can be passed in a suit for possession, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and mesne profit where facts are undisputed and admitted.
Admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC must be clear and unambiguous to justify a judgment without trial; ambiguous denials necessitate a full trial.
For a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, clear and unambiguous admissions relevant to the issues at stake in the suit are required, and the power to grant relief under this rule....
Admissions in earlier litigations serve as substantial proof for decreeing a suit under Order XII Rule 6, particularly when compliance with the agreement is undisputed by the defendant.
A family settlement, even if unregistered, is binding if acted upon, and courts can issue a decree on admission when clear admissions exist, emphasizing the discretionary nature of Order XII Rule 6.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
