THE LAW LITERATES 

KARAN vs MADHURI CA 4545/22 06/07/22 (double bench)

JUSTICE  INDIRA BANERJEE
&
JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI

[ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ]

 

• Order 12 Rule 6 CPC Power to pass judgment on admissions Power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right Legislative intent is clear by using the word ‘may’ and ‘as it may think fit’ to the nature of admission Said power is discretionary which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke the power of Order XII Rule 6 – Said provision has been brought with intent that if admission of facts raised by one side is admitted by other, and the Court is satisfied to the nature of admission, then the parties are not compelled for full-fledged trial and the judgment and order can be directed without taking any evidence – Therefore, to save the time and money of the Court and respective parties, the said provision has been brought in the statute – To pass a judgment on admission, the Court if thinks fit may pass an order at any stage of the suit – In case the judgment is pronounced by the Court a decree be drawn accordingly and parties to the case is not required to go for trial.

Relevant Paras:

20. Learned counsel for the Appellant has placed heavy reliance on a judgment of R. Kanthimathi (supra). In the said case, this Court has specified that any jural relationship between two persons could be created through an agreement and similarly could be changed through an agreement subject to the limitations under the law. However, it is urged that the relationship of the Appellant has now been changed to purchaser on signing the ATS­I by landlord subsequent to lease agreement, therefore the relationship of landlord and tenant extinguishes. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Himani Alloys Limited (supra) and it has been urged by Appellant that in case the admission is not of the amount as alleged and not categoric and clear, the decree under Order XII Rule 6 cannot be directed. The case of Hari Steel (supra) has also been relied upon to contend that the relief under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary and the Court should not deny the valuable right of the Defendant to contest the suit, meaning thereby, the discretion should be used only when there is a clear, categorical and unconditional admission and such right should not be exercised to deny valuable right of a Defendant to contest the claim based on defense taken. Further, relying upon the judgment of

Shrimant Shanrao Suryavanshi (supra), it has been contended that when a possession is with the Appellant by virtue of a part performance of agreement to sell as prescribed under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, he has right to defend or protect his possession.
21. On the other hand, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel, placed reliance on the judgment of Nagindas Ramdas (supra), inter alia, contending that the admissions if true and clear are the best proof of the fact admitted, it is also stated the admissions in the pleadings or judicial admissions admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act,
1872, made by the parties or their agents at or before hearing of the case stands on higher footings than evidentiary admissions. It is binding and constitute the waiver of proof. Learned senior counsel further submits that the judgment of R. Kanthimathi (supra) is distinguishable with the present case. In the said case, after referring the terms of the agreement it reflected that the major amount of sale consideration was paid and only Rs.5,000/­ was remaining to be paid. Also, by conveyance the possession of property was surrendered, therefore, Court said that the jural relationship between the persons were changed by way of subsequent agreement subject to the limitations under the law. While in the present case ATS­I was executed on 22.04.2017. In clause 2 of the said agreement, it was specifically mentioned “however, no advance – earnest money has been paid to the first party”. With respect to possession, it was mentioned that it shall be handed over on spot. Thus, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3,60,00,000/­ nothing was paid and the Appellant was in possession under the Lease Agreement as tenant. The document Annexure P­1 (Advance Receipt­cum Agreement to Sale & Purchase) produced alongwith the paperbook of appeal is a document which has not been produced before the lower Court. Thus, vide order dated 07.10.2021, it was made clear by this Court that the said document be deleted from the paperbook of this case. In view

of the said distinction drawn it was urged that judgment of R. Kanthimathi (supra) is of no help to the Appellant.

for more read the judgment click here 

karan-kapoor-vs-madhuri-kumar-Judgment -Vaibhav Tomar-The Law literates

all rights reserved (𝔸𝕕𝕧 Vaibhav tomar )