Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Application For Judgment On Admission Can't Be Disposed Of In Laconic Fashion, Reasoning In Order Must: Delhi High Court
"An application under Order XII rule 6 cannot be disposed of in such a laconic fashion. There has to be some modicum of reasoning in the order, meeting the grounds in the application," the Delhi High Court has observed. Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure states that where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may...
"An application under Order XII rule 6 cannot be disposed of in such a laconic fashion. There has to be some modicum of reasoning in the order, meeting the grounds in the application," the Delhi High Court has observed.
Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure states that 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.
The provision further states that whenever such a judgment is pronounced, a decree shall be drawn upon in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a plea challenging the order dated 23rd March 2022, passed by the Trial Court in a civil suit, on an application of the petitioners under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
The petitioners claimed to be the daughter and son of one Narender Singh, the pre-deceased son of Surender Kaur, who expired on 3rd November 2012, and, therefore, claimed to be her Class-I legal heirs.
On 12th November 2014, Surender Kaur was stated to have died intestate, leaving the petitioners and Respondents as her legal heirs. The plaint asserted that the petitioners and respondents became joint owners of the suit property, consequent on the demise of Surender Kaur.
The plaint further alleged that Defendant 1 had virtually taken control of all assets and properties of Surender Kaur and was seeking to deprive the petitioners of their shares. On the basis of these and other facts, the suit sought a declaration, in favour of the petitioners, that they were joint owners of the suit property, as well as partition of the suit property, apart from possession and permanent injunction.
During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, in which certain assertions made by the respondent had been stated, by the petitioner, to amount to admissions, entitling the petitioner to a decree on the basis thereof under Order XII Rule 6. The application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was disallowed by the impugned order dated 23rd March 2022.
The High Court observed that the impugned order was non- speaking in nature and that the Trial Court had merely rejected the application on the ground that there were no clear and unequivocal admissions on the part of the defendants.
"An application under Order XII rule 6 cannot be disposed of in such a laconic fashion. There has to be some modicum of reasoning in the order, meeting the grounds in the application," the Court observed.
The Court further added that it was imperative on the part of the Trial Court to set out, in the order, the reasons why the assertions which the petitioners regards as admissions were not so.
"I deem it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the impugned order dated 23rd March 2022 and remand the application filed by the petitioners under Order XII Rule 6 to the learned ADJ for a de novo consideration and for a decision thereon on merits," the Court ordered.
The plea was accordingly allowed.
Case Title: NEHA SAINI AND ANR. v. RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 655