Or. XII R.6 – Judgment on admissions – Nature and scope – Admission in criminal proceedings/FIR – Whether can form basis of civil decree – Caretaker/licensee disputing possession – Concurrent findings – Scope of interference under Art.136 Constitution of India.

advocatemmmohan

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 – O. XII R.6 – Judgment on admissions – Nature and scope – Admission in criminal proceedings/FIR – Whether can form basis of civil decree – Caretaker/licensee disputing possession – Concurrent findings – Scope of interference under Art.136 Constitution of India.

Plaintiffs instituted suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of open plot alleging that defendant was inducted merely as caretaker/chowkidar and had refused to vacate property – During pendency of suit plaintiffs filed application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking decree for possession on basis of admissions allegedly made by defendant in criminal complaint and FIR registered at his instance wherein he acknowledged plaintiffs’ ownership and admitted that he was occupying suit property as caretaker – Trial Court partly decreed suit directing defendant to hand over vacant possession – First Appellate Court and High Court affirmed decree holding admissions clear and unequivocal – Sustainability.

Held : Order XII Rule 6 CPC confers wide discretionary power upon Court to pass judgment at any stage of suit where admissions of fact are clear, unambiguous and unequivocal. Admission forming basis of decree need not be confined to pleadings alone and may arise “otherwise”, including from statements, complaints, documents or evidence recorded in collateral proceedings. No particular form of admission is necessary under Rule 6.

Object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to enable party to obtain speedy justice to extent of admitted claim and to avoid unnecessary prolongation of litigation where foundational facts stand admitted. Rule must receive liberal construction advancing expeditious adjudication rather than restrictive interpretation defeating legislative intent.

In present case, defendant had in complaint lodged before police specifically acknowledged that suit property belonged to plaintiff and that he had been inducted therein as caretaker/chowkidar. Said complaint was exhibited during criminal proceedings and defendant, while deposing as witness, never denied contents thereof nor disputed plaintiffs’ ownership or his status as caretaker. Mere voluntary statement that police had not read over contents of papers could not amount to retraction or denial of admissions contained in complaint and FIR.

Once ownership of plaintiffs and permissive occupation of defendant as caretaker/licensee stood admitted, continued possession after termination of licence became unauthorized and courts below were justified in granting decree for possession on admissions without requiring full-fledged trial.

Concurrent findings recorded by Trial Court, First Appellate Court and High Court regarding nature and effect of admissions being based on appreciation of material on record warranted no interference under Article 136 of Constitution.

Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, relied on.

(Paras 12 to 17)

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

Supreme Court analysed scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC in context of admissions arising outside pleadings. Court noticed that defendant himself had lodged criminal complaint admitting that plaintiffs were owners of suit property and that he occupied premises merely as caretaker at instance of plaintiffs. Such admission subsequently became part of judicial record in criminal proceedings when complaint was exhibited in evidence and defendant did not dispute its contents.

Court held that expression “either in pleadings or otherwise” occurring in Order XII Rule 6 CPC is of wide amplitude and permits Court to rely upon admissions made in collateral proceedings, including criminal proceedings, provided admissions are clear, conscious and unequivocal.

Court further distinguished between vague explanation and actual retraction of admission. Defendant merely stated during cross-examination that police had not read papers over to him; however, he never denied ownership of plaintiffs or his own status as caretaker. Such explanation was insufficient to dilute binding nature of admissions.

On legal principle, Court reiterated that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is intended to shorten litigation and confer speedy relief wherever material facts stand admitted. Once permissive possession and ownership were admitted, no triable issue survived regarding entitlement of plaintiffs to recover possession from caretaker/licensee after revocation of licence.

Supreme Court therefore declined to interfere with concurrent findings of all three courts.

RATIO

A decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can validly be passed on basis of clear and unequivocal admissions made outside pleadings, including admissions contained in criminal complaints, FIRs or evidence recorded in collateral proceedings. Once defendant admits plaintiff’s ownership and his own permissive occupation as caretaker/licensee, continued possession after termination of licence becomes unauthorized and Court may grant decree for possession without necessity of full trial.