Cases related to

admission

Lavenya . R
17BLA1043
INTRODUCTION
The expression 'Admission' means "Voluntarily acknowledgment of the existence or truth of
a particular fact". But In the Evidence Act, the term 'Admission' has not been used in this
wider sense. It deals with admissions by statements only oral or written or contained in an
electronic form. Admission plays a very important role in judicial proceedings. If one party to
the suit or any other proceeding proves that the other party has admitted his case, the work of
court becomes easier. An Admission must be clear, precise and not vague or ambiguous. I
will hereby discuss case law related to admission in Indian evidence act and its scope.
DEFINITION OF ADMISSION
According to Sec -17 of Indian Evidence Act, "An admission is a statement, oral or
documentary or [contained in electronic form (Amendment w.e.f. 17/10/2000)] which
suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of
the persons and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned."

There are three parts of the definition:

1) It defines term "admission"

2) It says that an admission will be relevant only if it is made by any of the person specified
in the Act.

3) "Admission" is Relevant only in the circumstances mentioned in the Act.1

CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMISSION
To constitute admission, the following characteristics are to be present as per definition stated
above.
1) It may be oral or documentary
2) It is a statement to suggest any inference to any fact in issue or relevant fact.
3) It must be made by any person prescribed under the Act; and
4) It must be made under the circumstance prescribed under the Act.
The admission must be clear and unambiguous. The admission is admissible because of
the following reasons:
a) Admission as a waiver of proof;
b) Admission as a statement against interest;
c) Admission as evidence of contradictory statement;
d) Admission as evidence of truth.
Admission is the best substantive evidence that an opposite party can rely upon.

Nature of Admission:

1
Indian Evidence Act, 1972 – Section -17
The statements made by parties during judicial proceeding are 'self-regarding statements'.
The self-regarding statements may be classified under two heads -

i) Self-serving statements; and

ii) Self-harming statements.

i) Self-serving Statements - Self-serving statements are those, which serve, promote or

advance the interest of the person making it. Hence, they are not allowed to be proved. They
enable to create evidence for themselves.

ii) Self-harming - Self-harming statements are those which harm or prejudice or injure the
interest of the person making it. These self-harming statements all technically known as
“Admissions" and are allowed to be proved.

In case of Dinesh Kumar Singhania v. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited the
Court observed that- From a perusal of the provisions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, it
appears that the scope of the rule is that in a case where admission of fact has been made by
either of the parties in pleadings whether orally or in writing, or otherwise, the judgment to
the extent of admission can be given by the Court on its own motion or on the application of
any party.2

The provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code are virtually modelled on identical provisions
in the Supreme Court Practice.

Order 27, Rule 3 talks about- Judgment on admission of facts

“Where admissions of facts are made by a party to a cause or matter either by his pleadings or
otherwise, any other party to the cause or matter may apply to the Court for such judgment or
order as upon those admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination
of any other question between the parties, and the Court may give such judgment, or make
such order, on the application as it thinks fit.”

PARAMETERS WITHIN WHICH COURTS ARE TO GIVE JUDGMENT ON

ADMISSION
In case of Smt. Sudesh Madhok v. Paam Antibiotics Ltd. and Anr. the Court said that “where
a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass
a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy
judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the
defendant, the plaintiff is entitled." We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this
Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made

2
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/719/Judgment-on-Admissions.html
a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a
clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such
admission to succeed. Admission should be clear and unambiguous.3

In Raj Kumar Chawla v. Lucas Indian Services, the Division Bench states that there cannot
be an inferential admission – it has to be unambiguous. In other words, the Court should not
deduce an admission, as the result of an interpretive exercise. The Court’s approach while
considering whether any averment or omission to traverse any material allegation amounts to
an admission cannot be subjective or one side. It has to necessarily, take into consideration
the implications which may arise from a party urging one contention or another, on the basis
of what is on record.4

IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR FORM OF ADMISSION REQUIRED?

From the language of Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is clear that it is
open to the Court to base a judgment on admission on the pleadings or otherwise. The word
"otherwise", in the said provision clearly indicates that it is open to the Court to base the
judgment on statements made by a party not only in the pleadings but also de hors the,
pleadings. Such admissions may be made either expressly or constructively.

RELIEF UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 IS DISCRETIONARY (not a matter of right)

The provision 'under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is enabling, discretionary and permissive
and is neither mandatory nor it is peremptory since the word "may" has been used. It is not
incumbent on the Courts to pass judgment on admissions and in order to succeed under Order
XII Rule 6 CPC; the admission of the other party has to be clear and unequivocal.

CAN JUDGMENT BE GIVEN AFTER ISSUES ARE FRAMED?

Yes. There is no time limit specified for Court to grant relief on its own or on application at
any stage of the suit. The use of the expression "any stage" in the said rule itself shows that
the legislature's intent is to give it widest possible meaning. Thus merely because issues are
framed cannot by itself deter the court to pass the judgment on admission under O. XII R. 6,
C.P.C.

Bare perusal of Order XII Rule 6 shows, that it confers very wide powers on the court, to
pronounce judgment on admission at any stage of the proceedings. The admission may have
been made either in pleadings, or otherwise. The admission may have been made orally or in
writing. The court can act on such admission, either on an application of any party or on its
own motion without determining the other questions. This provision is discretionary, which

3
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/171897429/
4
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/719/Judgment-on-Admissions.html
has to be exercised on well established principles. Admission must be clear and unequivocal;
it must be taken as a whole and it is not permissible to rely on a part of the admission
ignoring the other part; even a constructive admission firmly made can be made the basis.

CAN JUDGMENT BE GIVEN AFTER ADMISSION/DENIAL?

In Delhi Jal Board v Surendra P Malik the Court held that it is essential that the admissions
must be plain, unambiguous and unequivocal and that when a defence is set up and it requires
evidence for determination of the issues then the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 are not
applicable and a judgment cannot be passed on the plaintiff's asking.5
In Balraj Taneja and another v Sunil Madan and Another the Supreme Court referred to
Order VIII Rule 5 which deals with denials and observed that sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 provides
that any fact stated in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or
stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be treated as admitted. It
further observed that under Rule 3 of Order VIII it is provided that the denial by the
defendant in his written statement must be specific with reference to each allegation of fact
made in the plaint. A general denial or an evasive denial is not treated as sufficient denial
and, therefore, the denial, if it is not definite, positive and unambiguous; the allegations of
facts made in the plaint shall be treated as admitted under this Rule. The court is empowered
under Order XII Rule 6 to pass judgment and decree in respect of admitted claims pending
adjudication of the disputed claims in the suit.
6

CAN JUDGMENTS BE GIVEN SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT?

In case of IPRS v. Puneet Goenka it was seen that agreements amount to an unequivocal
admission of liability provided they are not in contravention of law.

WHEN CAN JUDGMENT ON ADMISSION BE DECLINED?

In the case of Manisha Commercial Ltd. v. N.R. Dongre, J. Vikramajit Sen, had dismissed an
Application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC observing that it was wholly inappropriate to
permit any party to employ this provision where vexed and complicated questions or issues of
law had arisen. The Apex Court has observed that it is a futile exercise, and a serious
miscarriage of justice, if parties are compelled to undergo a full trial where the lis can be
brought to an earlier and quicker culmination on the foundation of admissions made by a
party (which obviously is usually the defendant). The Apex Court has enjoined the Trial
Court to meaningfully fulfill this judicial exercise. Order XII, Rule 6 in fact prescribes this
duty shall be a suo moto exercise. This Rule however, predictably invests discretion with the
Court - that is - even if there is an unequivocal admission by a party but the passing of a
judgment would work injustice on it, judgment could be declined.7

5
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Delhi-Jal-Board-Versus-Surendra-PMalik-2003-03-24
6
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182831/
7
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/719/Judgment-on-Admissions.html
In the case of State bank of India v. Midland Industries the Court held that where the
defendants have raised objections which go to the very root of the case, it would not be
proper to exercise this discretion and pass a decree in favor of the plaintiff. The purpose of
Order XII rule 6 Civil Procedure Code is to avoid waiting by the plaintiff for part of the
decree when there is a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional admission of the
defendant in respect of the claim of the defendant. The rule only secures that if there is no
dispute between the parties, and if there is on the pleadings or otherwise such an admission as
to make it plain that the plaintiff is entitled to a particular order or judgment he should be able
to obtain it at once to the extent of admission. But the rule is not intended to apply where
there are serious questions of law to be asked and determined. Likewise where specific issues
have been raised in spite of admission on the part of the defendants the plaintiff would be
bound to lead evidence on those issues and prove the same before he becomes entitled to
decree and the plaintiff in that event cannot have a decree by virtue of provision of Order XII
rule 6 Civil Procedure Code without proving those issues.8

In the case of Raj Kumar Chawla v. Lucas Indian Services, it was said that the Court
essentially should look into the fact that all essential ingredients of an admission are satisfied
before such a decree is passed in favor of any of the parties to the suit. Admission has to be
unambiguous, clear and unconditional and the law would not permit admission by inference
as it is a matter of fact. Admission of a fact has to be clear from the record itself and cannot
be left to the interpretative determination by the Court, unless there was a complete trial and
such finding could be on the basis of cogent and appropriate evidence on record.9
In the case of Express Towers P. Ltd. and Anr. v. Mohan Singh it may not be safe and correct
to pass a judgment under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code when a case involves disputed
questions of fact and law which require adjudication and decision. Even when a party has
made an admission, the Court need not dismiss or allow the suit. Judgment on the basis of
admissions is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion for the Court.

Therefore, where questions of law and fact have been raised, which can be decided only at
the time of trial, a Judgment under Order XII Rule 6 cannot be pronounced on the basis of
alleged admissions in the written statement.

In the case of Western Coalfiels Ltd. v. Swati Industries the Court held that in the matter of
judgment on admission, general rule is that the pleadings are to be read as a whole;
admissions in pleadings cannot be dissected. The Court is vested with jurisdiction to pass a
decree on admission on the strength of the principle laid down under Section 58 of the
Evidence Act that admitted facts need not be proved and as such admissions can be
considered as substantive evidence on which a decree can be passed. When the admission is
qualified and conditional and not conclusive then order cannot be invited under order XII rule
6.

8
https://books.google.co.in/
9
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/719/Judgment-on-Admissions.html
In the case of Naspuri Dharmaiah v. Kota Veeraiah the court held that merely on the grounds
of the admissions made by the Defendant, the decree cannot be granted in terms of the prayer
made in the suit. It stated that the Court holds the responsibility to check whether the Plaintiff
is entitled to obtain the relief sought for and the Court should also see whether the suit is
collusive meant to defeat the law concerning public revenues, public policy, etc. It mentioned
that the Court ought not to pass a decree based on the admissions or consent of parties.

In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum it was held that Order XII Rule 6 has to be read
along with the proviso to Rule 5 of Order VIII.

That is to say, notwithstanding the admission made by the defendant in his pleading, the
Court may still require the plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded by him in the plaint.
10

Thus, in spite of admission of a fact having been made by a party to the suit, the Court may
still require the plaintiff to prove the fact which has been admitted by the defendant. This is
also in consonance with the provisions of Section 58 of the Evidence Act which provides as
under:

Section 58 of Evidence Act- Facts admitted need not be proved--No fact need be proved in
any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or
which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by
any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved
otherwise than by such admissions.11

WHEN CAN JUDGMENT ON ADMISSION BE ALLOWED?

In case of Sharex Acting through Vinod Kumar Chadha v. Smt. Sudershan Suri the Court
held that "Where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the
plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim.” In this case the execution of the lease deed
had been unequivocally admitted by the appellant. Once the execution of the document has
been admitted, Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, come into play. Section 91 lays down
that when the terms of a contract or of any other disposition of property have been reduced to
the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract or
other disposition of property, except the document itself. Section 92 further lays down that

10
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/719/Judgment-on-Admissions.html
11
Indian Evidence Act, 1972
when the terms of any such contract or other disposition of property have been proved
according to the last Section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be
admitted as between the parties to any such instrument for the purpose of contradicting,
varying, adding to or subtracting there from. Thus, quite obviously, the pleas raised by the
appellant against the contents of the lease deed are barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the
Evidence Act and appear to have been made only for the purpose of delaying the trial of the
case. Such pleas as ruled by this Court in the Parivar Seva Sansthan case can be ignored by
the Court while adjudicating an application under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure
if otherwise the Court finds, either on an application of any party or on its own motion, that
the admissions made in the pleadings or otherwise taken as a whole justify the passing of a
decree thereon. In fact, the Court in the said case has gone so far as to say that even a
constructive admission firmly made can be made the basis of the decree. All that the Court is
required to do is to satisfy itself that the question raised in the suit can be determined without
evidence.

In case of M.M. Chhabra & sons v. Colour Plus Fashions Ltd. the High Court of Delhi said
that mere dispute and mention of a vague arrangement, or oral agreement, is insufficient in
absence of sufficient material on record to support a plea. Such vague averments cannot
detain the Court, from exercising its powers under Order XII Rule 6, and have to be
discarded.12

In case of Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan Supreme Court said that Order XII
Rule 6, C.P.C. is enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite the trials. If there is any
admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be inferred from the facts and
circumstances of the case without any dispute; then, in such a case in order to expedite and
dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon.

In the case of Rohini Varshnei v. R.B. Singh the Court said that it is trite to say that in order
to obtain a judgment on admissions, the admissions must be clear and unequivocal. In the
matter of landlord and tenant, there are only three aspects which are required to be examined:

i) A relationship of landlord and tenant;

ii) Expiry of the tenancy by afflux of time or determination by valid notice to quit; and
iii) The rent of the premises being more than Rs. 3,500/- per month in view of the provisions
of the said Act.
13

12
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Ms-Sharex-Acting-Vinod-Kumar-Chadha-Versus-Smt-Sudershan-Suri-2010-
06-04
13
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/719/Judgment-on-Admissions.html
CONCLUSION
Thus, it can be said that Judgment on admissions dealt under Order XII Rule 6 is not a matter
of right. It is discretionary and should be exercised judicially on the facts and circumstances
of each case. The underlying object of the above mentioned rule is to enable a party to obtain
speedy judgment on admission in respect of admitted claims pending disposal of disputed
claims in a suit. It is not binding on the Court to pass a decree. A decree can be passed only to
the extent of admitted claims for which admissions are clear, unequivocal and unambiguous.
There is no specific form of admission required for a Court to pass a decree. It may be
contained in pleadings or otherwise. It may be in writing or may even be oral. Even in cases
where some dispute has arisen over any admission judgment on such admission can be passed
until there is sufficient material on record to prove such dispute and vague averments.
Moreover, if an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case
without dispute, Court can pass a judgment on such admission. Also it can be seen that
judgment on admission can be passed at any stage either on application of party or suo moto.
There is no stipulated time frame within which judgment on admission has to be passed.
Merely because issues are framed in a case is no ground for rejecting an application under
Order XII Rule 6. Judgment of admission can be declined when the admission is qualified
and ambiguous. It can also be denied where vexed and complicated questions of fact or law
have arisen which require adjudication and decision. Furthermore, the Court cannot exercise
power of giving judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 where the defendants have
raised objections which go to the very root of the case. Admission of a fact has to be clear
from the facts and it should not be left to interpretative determination of Court. The Court has
to exercise caution while passing a decree on admissions to see that the suit is not collusive
meant to defeat law. Even if there is an unequivocal admission by a party but the passing of a
judgment would work injustice on it, judgment could be declined.