[Order XII Rule 6 CPC ] Tests For Exercise Of Judicial Discretion For Passing Judgment On Admissions: Calcutta High Court Reiterates
The Calcutta High Court on Monday reiterated the three essential tests for exercise of its discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC for passing a judgment on the basis of admissions made. The Court summarised the three tests to be as: (i) satisfaction of judicial conscience; (ii) admission has to be clear, unequivocal, unconditional and ambiguous and (iii) admission has to be taken as...
The Calcutta High Court on Monday reiterated the three essential tests for exercise of its discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC for passing a judgment on the basis of admissions made.
The Court summarised the three tests to be as: (i) satisfaction of judicial conscience; (ii) admission has to be clear, unequivocal, unconditional and ambiguous and (iii) admission has to be taken as a whole unless the claim allowed by the Court on admission is severable from the petitioner's claim.
The Court was dealing with an application filed by plaintiff praying for judgement on admission on the ground that the plaintiff entered into Terms of Settlement with the defendant no. 1 wherein the defendant no. 1 admitted that the lease of the suit premises has expired by efflux of time and the plaintiff is the rightful lessee of the suit premises. The defendant nos. 2 to 5 had further admitted through affidavit that they had entered into an indenture with the defendant no. 1 whereby the defendant no. 1 as a sub-lessor created sub-lease of the suit property in favour of the defendant nos. 2 to 5. A secondary cause of action for the said application arose when it was also admitted by the defendant nos. 2 to 5 that the lease in favour of the defendant no. 1 expired, plaintiff claimed.
Plaintiff submitted that as the right of the defendant no. 1 which was admitted arose out of the expired registered lease deed, the plaintiff's right was also admitted and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to a decree based on such admission recorded in the terms of settlement. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the defendant nos. 13 and 14 were claiming their right through the defendant nos. 2 to 5 as sub-lessees and since the lease of the defendant nos. 2 to 5 has admittedly determined by efflux of time, the plaintiff was accordingly entitled to get decree on admission.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Court must endeavour to see that unnecessary trial for the sake of formality did not take place and as such in the instant case, as there was an admission by the defendants, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree passed on such admission.
Counsel for the defendant no. 13 contended that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any semblance of such admission on the part of the defendant no. 13 and prayed for dismissal of the application. Counsel for the defendant nos. 13 and 14 further contended that the defendant nos. 2 and 5 had fraudulently and in collusion with the plaintiff had surrendered the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of suits pending before the City Civil Court for adjudication. Counsel for the defendant no. 14 referred to Section 115 of the Transfer of Property Act to submit that the surrender of lease did not prejudice the property under lease or in part thereof previously granted by the lessee.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Krishna Rao summarised the three tests governing the discretionary exercise of passing a judgment on the basis of admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to be as:
"In exercising the discretion under [Order XII, Rule 6] of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has to satisfy its judicial conscience alike other instances of exercise of such discretion by the Court. Secondly, the admission must be clear, unequivocal, unconditional and unambiguous so that there may not be necessity for the Court to wait determination of other question. Thirdly, the admission must be taken as a whole unless the part of the claim which the Court proposes to allow on admission is severable from other parts of the plaintiff's claim."
Reliance was placed upon Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd., whereby the Supreme Court held that for purpose of Order XII Rule 6, 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." It was further held that the Court 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."
On merits, the Court found that the defendant nos. 13 and 14 had raised triable issues with respect to sub-lease entered into by the defendant nos. 2 to 5 with the defendant nos. 13 and 14 and furthermore as the defendants had specifically pleaded about alleged fraud and collusion and had also filed their respective suit for declaration of tenancy right over the instant suit the property, a judgment on admission as prayed for in the instant application could not be passed.
Case: Awam Marketing LLP v. M/S. Orient Beverages Ltd. & Ors., CS 85 of 2016
Date: 05.12.2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 355