Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) are enabling, discretionary and permissive and not mandatory or obligatory. This is clear from the use of word “may” in the rule. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal (2025). 

What was the Background of Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal (2025) Case?   

• The plaintiff is the lawful owner of a property where the defendant claims to be a tenant. 
• The original tenant was Ranjan Ghosh (defendant's father), who paid a monthly rent of Rs. 1700. 
• Ranjan Ghosh passed away on 13th July 2016. 
• On 20th July 2018, the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant informing him that as the son of the original tenant, he could only inherit the tenancy for 5 years after his father's death. 
• The defendant received this notice but did not provide a satisfactory reply. 
• The plaintiff filed a title suit to recover possession of the property. 
• In his written statement, the defendant admitted that:  
  • His father Ranjan Ghosh was the sole tenant. 
  • The plaintiff is the owner of the property. 
  • Rent was paid until May 2021. 
• Based on these admissions, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for a judgment based on admission. 
• The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. 
• The defendant appealed to the High Court (FAT No. 7 of 2024), but the High Court dismissed the appeal. 
• The High Court confirmed that under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the defendant could only continue as tenant for 5 years after his father's death. 
• Since this 5-year period had already expired, the defendant was considered a trespasser, and the plaintiff was entitled to eviction. 
• The High Court granted the defendant three months to vacate the premises. 
• The defendant has now filed the present petition challenging the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court made a very important observation with regard to Order XII Rule 6 that the provisions of Rule 6 are enabling, discretionary and permissive. The Court observed that they are not mandatory, obligatory or peremptory.  
• The above is clear from the use of word “may” in the rule. 
• It was observed by the Court that to make order or to pronounce judgment on admission is at the discretion of the Court. 
• It was also observed that the word “or otherwise” used in the provision is wide enough to include all cases of admissions made in the pleadings or de hors the pleadings.  
• Under Rule 6, as originally enacted, it was held that the words “or otherwise” without the words “in writing” used in Rule 1 showed that a judgment could be given upon oral or verbal admission also. 
• The Court held that in the present facts having regard to clear and unequivocal admission made by the defendant in his written statement, the High Court committed no error much less any error of law in decreeing the suit applying Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. 
• Thus, the Court in the facts of the present case dismissed the petition. 

What is Judgment on Admissions? 

• Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) laid down judgment on admission. 
• Constituents: 
  • Rule 6 (1) provides: 
    • The provision permits the Court to make an order or give judgment upon admissions of fact made in pleadings or otherwise, whether in writing or orally. 
    • Such judicial action may be taken at any stage of the suit without awaiting determination of other questions between parties. 
    • The Court may act either upon application by any party or of its own motion. 
    • The Court shall exercise its discretion having regard to such admissions when issuing orders or judgments. 
  • Rule 6 (2) provides that whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
• Amendment Act of 1976: 
  • This made the position clear that such admissions may be “in the pleading or otherwise” and “whether orally or in writing”. 
  • After the amendment in Rule 6, admissions are not confined to Rule 1 or Rule 4 of Order 6 but are of general application. 
  • Such admissions may be express or implied (constructive); may be in writing or oral; or may be before the institution of the suit, after the suit is brought or during the pendency of proceedings. 
  • Before the amendment Rule 6 of Order XII allowed judgment on admission only on an application by a party.
• Important Points on Order XII Rule 6 of CPC: 
  • This rule authorizes the court to enter a judgment where a claim is admitted and to pass a decree on such admitted claim. This can be done at any stage. 
  • Thus, a plaintiff may move for judgment upon admission by the defendant in his written statement at any stage of the suit although he has joined issue on the defence. 
  • Likewise, a defendant may apply for dismissal of the suit on the basis of admission by the plaintiff in rejoinder 
  • The court may, in an appropriate case, give a judgment at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings on admission by a party. 
  • Since the object of sub-rule (1) is to enable the plaintiff to get judgment on admission of the defendant to the extent of such admission, he must get the benefit thereof immediately without waiting for the determination of “non-admitted claim”. 
    • In such cases, there may be two decrees; (i) in respect of admitted claim; and (ii) in respect of “non-admitted” or contested claim. 
  • A decree under Rule 6 may be either preliminary or final.
• Important Judgments: 
  • Uttam Singh v. United Bank of India (2000): 
    • Where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. 
    • The scope of Order XII Rule 6 should not be narrowed down where a party applying for judgment is entitled to succeed on a plain admission of the opposite party. 
  • ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood and Son (2000): 
    • The Division Bench of the High Court held that: 
      • Order XII, Rule. 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion to the Court. 
      • Under this rule the Court may at any stage of the suit either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without determination of any other question between the parties can make such order giving such judgment as it may think fit on the basis of admission of a fact made in the pleadings or otherwise whether orally or in writing 
    • The Court interpreted ‘otherwise’ and held that the Court can pass judgment on the basis of the statement made by the parties not only on the pleadings but also dehors the pleadings i.e. either in any document or even in the statement recorded in the Court.