Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Judgment Can't Be Delivered Based On Unclear, Ambiguous & Conditional Admissions: Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that as per Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“C.P.C.”), a judgment can't be delivered based on an unclear and ambiguous admission.According to the court, when the testimony supplied in an admission contains both mixed questions of fact and law then such an admission against the law can never be an “admission” as visualized...
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that as per Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“C.P.C.”), a judgment can't be delivered based on an unclear and ambiguous admission.
According to the court, when the testimony supplied in an admission contains both mixed questions of fact and law then such an admission against the law can never be an “admission” as visualized under Order XII Rule 6.
“Order XII Rule 6 is meant for speedy disposal of the suits in some cases but on the risk of repetition, we would like to caution that unless there is a clear, unambiguous, unequivocal and unconditional admission, courts should not exercise their discretion under the Rule because judgment on admissions is without a trial which may even preclude a party to challenge the matter on merits in the court of appeal.”, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale said.
The landlord sought eviction of the appellants/tenant on the ground that as per the West Bengal Tenancy Premises Act, 1997 ("New Act") he couldn't continue to remain in possession beyond five years after the death of his mother (2009), who happened to be a tenant.
However, the tenant resisted the eviction on the ground that they inherited the tenancy rights way back in 1970 as per the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 ("Old Act") after their father's death, and it was wrong to say that they could occupy the suit premise as a tenant only for five years (till 2014) after their mother's death (2009).
In support of his contention, the landlord referred to the appellant's testimony rendered in 'another case' to prove that only the mother of the appellant was the tenant and the appellants could occupy the suit premise as a tenant for five years from the date of their mother's demise. Also, the landlord argued that since the Old Act was repealed by the New Act therefore the Appellant could not claim the benefit of the Old Act to claim inheritance in tenancy rights.
Based on an admission made by an appellant in 'another case', a trial court delivered a judgment as per Order XII Rule 6 CPC in the present case against the appellant which was approved by the High Court.
Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that the admission based on which the judgment was delivered against the appellants could not be called proper admission.
The court reasoned that no judgment could be delivered based on an admission that is against the law. According to the court, an admission that extinguishes the right guaranteed under the legislation cannot be termed as an admission and would be categorized as an 'admission against the law'. Since the Old Act was repealed by the New Act but in no manner, the New Act could take away the rights accrued to the Appellants under the Old Act unless the New Act specified the intention to take away such rights.
Because the New Act didn't specify the intention to take away the rights accrued to the Appellants under the Old Act, thus the Court held that an inference taken by the courts below about the appellant's admission in 'another case' would be taken against himself doesn't hold good. According to the Court, the appellant's admission in another case was against the law as it extinguished the tenancy rights accrued to him as per the Old Act.
According to the court, the appellant's admission in another case that her mother was the tenant of the suit premises could not operate against himself in the present case because of the unclarity and ambiguity lying in an admission.
"We have perused the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of appellant no.1 made in that 'other case' where this statement was made. Such questions and their answers are commonplace in depositions before courts, but every such statement cannot be considered as an 'admission' to invoke Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. It is for the courts to see whether any statement in the pleadings or otherwise amounts to an admission of such a nature as to inspire the confidence of the court to pass judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. It will depend upon the content and kind of statement/admission which may vary from case to case. In other words, it would depend upon the totality of facts and circumstances of a particular given case. In the present case, here, it is not a 'clear admission' as is being made out. Moreover, where the question and its answer are both a mixed question of fact and law, as in the present case, a so called 'admission' against the law can never be an “admission” as visualised under Order XII Rule 6.", the court observed.
Also From Judgment: New Act Will Not Take Away Rights Accrued Under Repealed Law Unless Such Intention Is Expressed In New Statute: Supreme Court
Case Title: RAJESH MITRA @RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR. VERSUS KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3593-3594 OF 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 790