Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
P.Shanmugam – Appellant
Versus
P.Sampath – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | CRP. PD. No. 2500 of 2024
For the Appellant: Mr.S.Senthilnathan
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Chandrasekar
A judgment can be granted based on an unequivocal admission without awaiting resolution of other claims, ensuring a speedy judicial process.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Application for judgment on admissions - The plaintiff sought a judgment on the basis of the defendant's admission regarding the share of immovable property - Court affirmed the approach of granting judgment without waiting for determination of non-admitted claims - Clarity of defendant's admission justified the grant of preliminary decree. (Paras 9-13)
(B) Order on merits - Trial Court's dismissal of judgment on admission was found erroneous as it did not consider prior admissions and the implications of subsequent applications in light of established procedural guidelines. (Paras 15-16)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of his application for judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, argued that the defendant admitted to the share of property during the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the lack of error in the defendant's admission warranted a preliminary decree for a 50% share in the immovable property.
Issues: The case revolves around whether an unequivocal admission was sufficient for a judgment on admission, and whether subsequent filings by the defendant impeded the plaintiff's claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an admission of fact permits a judgment without awaiting the outcome of other unresolved issues, reaffirming the objective of speedy resolutions.
Result: Revision allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks partition based on defendant's known admissions. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. background on plaintiff's petition for partition. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondent counters with procedural delays presented in the court. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 14) |
| 4. court determined admissions under rule 6 allow expedited relief. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court's assessment of admissions and application of rule 6. (Para 11) |
| 6. summarized outcome granting judgment based on admissions. (Para 16) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on: 12.06.2025 Pronounced on: 19.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP. PD. No. 2500 of 2024 and CMP. Nos.13150 & 13151 of 2024 P.Shanmugam Petitioner(s)
Vs P.Sampath Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decree made in I.A. No.5 of 2024 in O.S. No.20 of 2021 dated 18.04.2024 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge FTC, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilnathan For Respondent : Mr.R.Chandrasekar **********
ORDER
The plaintiff in a suit for partition and separate possession, aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his Application under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ' CPC ') has preferred the above revision.
2. I have heard Mr.S.Senthinathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Senthinathan would submit that the Trial Court, having noticed that the defendant has in no uncertain terms admitted the right and entitlement of the plaintiff insofar as the immovable item of property is concerned, ought not to have dismissed the Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC , citing the addition of another immovable property in IA.No.06 of 2024. He would further state that IA.No.06 of 2024 was filed only pursuant to the Application filed by the plaintiff, to pass a judgment and decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and that too, with an ulterior motive of protracting proceedings, despite earlier categorical admission of the right of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the plaintiff has also taken out an Application to include other properties which have been left out and further the suit also involves movable items of properties and pendency of the suit in respect of other items of the property cannot be a bar to entertain the Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC .
4. He would also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Ghosh vs Satya Naryan Jaiswal reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 751.
5. Per contra, Mr.R.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent had taken out IA.No.06 of 2024 which came to be allowed by the Trial Court as early as on 18.04.2024, including one other item of immovable property to the suit schedule properties. He would further state that the plaintiff has not even come forward to amend the plaint pursuant to the order dated 18.04.2024, allowing IA.No.06 of 2024 filed by the defendant. He would therefore submit that there is no error or infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court and seeks dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either and also perused the records.
7. Order XII Rule 6 of CPC reads as follows:
“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 th
