HYDERABAD: The Court can pass a judgment, under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the basis of admissions made by the defendant at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings but before the Court can act upon such admissions, it has to be shown that the admission is unequivocal, clear and positive. The said Rule was enacted to expedite trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or admission can be inferred from facts and circumstances of the case.
The Court can give its judgment at any stage of the suit as it may think fit having regard to where admissions have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing and without waiting for the determination of any other question between parties.
In one of the case before a division bench of High Court, the bench has not supported the opinion of the trial court that admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC necessarily has to be made only in the pleadings. Dealing with a case regarding dispute between two companies, the trial court held that the correspondence between the parties could not be relied upon, as per Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, and that the admissions should be either in the pleadings or in the oral evidence or writing by the other side.
One of the company approached the district court with a plea for recovery of its amount from the defendant company along with interest. The petitioner company, in its plea, urged the trial court to pass a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC on the strength of the admissions made by the respondent-company. The trial court dismissed the petitioner’s plea saying that the correspondence between the parties could not be relied upon, as per the said Rule, and that the admissions should be either in the pleadings or in the oral evidence or writing by the other side. The trial court further stated that neither in the e-mails nor in the reply notice, the respondent-company had specifically admitted the due amount. As there was no such pleading in the statement, the trial court dismissed the petitioner’s case. Aggrieved, the petitioner-company moved the High Court by filing the civil revision petition.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record and various court judgments, the bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kumar said that the opinion of the trial court that admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC has to be made only in the pleadings cannot be countenanced. The judge said even correspondence can be looked into for determining as to whether the requirements of the Rule were satisfied. The petitioner-company had relied upon not only the e-mails exchanged between the parties but also the reply of the respondent-company in response to the legal notice issued by the former. Unfortunately, the trial court lightly brushed aside the said document while coming to the conclusion that no admission had been made in terms of the said Rule of CPC. The judge said that the trial court necessarily had to consider not only the e-mails but also the reply notice of the respondent-company before concluding as to whether any admission had been made by the respondent-company.
Referring to Delhi High Court judgment in Vijaya Myne vs Satya Bhushan Kaura case, Justice Sanjay Kumar said that the Delhi High Court had held that admissions could be in the pleadings or otherwise, namely, in documents, and correspondence.