Judgment on Admissions Under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC Denied Due to Lack of Unequivocal Admission

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a civil suit (RCS A/527/2024) for partition and possession.

During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, requesting a judgment based on categorical admissions allegedly made by the defendants in their written statement regarding the property’s history and the plaintiff’s possession.

The trial court rejected this application on May 13, 2026, holding that the admissions were not unequivocal or sufficient to decree the suit without a trial.

The petitioner challenged this rejection before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the statements made by the defendants in their written statement constituted "clear, cut, and unequivocal" admissions sufficient to pass a judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

2. Whether the trial court committed an error of law or jurisdictional perversity in rejecting the application for judgment on admissions.

Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which empowers a court to pass a judgment at any stage where admissions of fact are made either in pleadings or otherwise.

Legal principles established in Rajeev Ghosh v. Satyanarayn Jaiswal [2025 Livelaw(SC) 415], Saroj Salkan v. Huma Singh, and Uttam Singh Dugele & Co. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India, which mandate that for a decree to be passed under this rule, the admission by the contesting party must be undisputed, clear, and unequivocal.

The High Court examined the specific paragraphs of the written statement (paras 1–4) and observed that while the defendants admitted certain factual aspects regarding the family lineage and the plaintiff's occupation of portions of the property, they simultaneously raised "serious disputes" regarding the actual assignment of shares.

The defendants denied that the plaintiff held a 1/5th share in certain business assets/shops and asserted that shares were assigned in favour of the defendants.

The court reasoned that because the written statement contained "incomplete and unclear" admissions coupled with specific denials, the matter presented "triable issues" that necessitated the adducing of evidence.

Consequently, the court found that the mandatory threshold for "unequivocal admission" required by Order 12 Rule 6 was not met.

The court concluded that a decree cannot be granted on the basis of disputed pleadings and that the petitioner failed to make out a case for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.