Judgment ON ADMISSIONS: Order 12 RULE-6 OF CPC
The civil litigation, it
is often felt, is a tardy and inordinately long process. However, close
scrutiny of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure would suggest that it is
not so, provided, the provisions contained therein are adequately utilized in
apt cases and judgments are sought in pre-trial stage or in the very initial
stage itself. In fact, the courts are empowered to take a suo motu view on the plaint and decide the lis between the parties
without going into process of evidence, if ex
facie it appears that the judgment could be passed on the basis of
admissions. The provisions and principles of judgment on the basis of
admissions are contained in order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure. The
averments in the plaint and written statement shall only have to be gone
through for this purpose, apart from documents filed along with the pleadings. It
is also not necessary that express admissions by the defendant or the plaintiff
shall be necessary. The admission can be implied or constructive. The
admissions may come out of pleadings or documents either expressly or by
necessary implication. Even the bald and evasive denial shall be construed as
admission. Therefore, it is not as if the express admission shall be a sine qua non of invoking the aforesaid principle.
The judgments and precedents have spelt out the fait accompli. It is now clear that bald and evasive denial by the
opposing parties shall not relegate parties to trial and only if substantive
defence stares at the record, the process of trial shall not be warranted.
PRINCIPLES
A. The
principles/provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure are
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
ORDER XII Rule 6. Judgment on admissions
(1) Where
admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise,
whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on
the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the
determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or
give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) 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."
Order VIII Rules 3, 4
and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure relates to the denials to made by the
defendant to the averments made by the plaintiff. The principles of Order VIII
Rules 3, 4 and 5 are reproduced hereunder:
B. ORDER
VIII WRITTEN STATEMENT, SETOFF AND COUNTER CLAIM.
Rule 3 : “Denial to be
Specific It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement
to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must
deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the
truth, except damages”.
Rule
4: Evasive Denial: Where a
defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so
evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he
received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he
received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or
any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is
made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along
with those circumstances”.
Specific
Denial
Rule 5. (1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if
not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not
admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except
as against a person under disability:
Provided that the Court may in it discretion
require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such
admission."
LAW/Judicial
Precedents
SUPREME
COURT
The hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd Vs
Union Bank of India, AIR 2000 SC 2740, has
held that a litigant should not be made to wait for a decree and a decree can
expeditiously be passed on the admissions of the defendant. The relevant
observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced here as under:
". As to the object of the Order 12 Rule 6,
we need not say anything more than what the Legislature itself has said when
the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while
amending the said rule, it is stated that 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 object of the rule is to enable the party to obtain a
speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the
admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. We should not unduly
narrow down the meaning of this rule as the object is to enable a party to
obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling
the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear
admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making
such admission to succeed."
In
M/s Gian Chand Brothers Vs Rattan Lal, (2013) 2 SCC 606, the Supreme Court held that it shall not be
sufficient for a defendant to deny generally the averments by the plaintiff,
but he must be specific with each allegation of fact. It was further held that
where there is evasive denial, the defendant cannot be permitted to lead
evidence, when nothing is stated in the pleadings.
The
hon’ble Supreme Court in Badat
& Co. v. East India Trading Co. AIR 1964
SC 538 has while referring to Rules 3, 4 and 5 of Order 8 of the Code has
observed :
"These three rules form an integrated code
dealing with the manner in which allegations of fact in the plaint should be
traversed and the legal consequences flowing from its non compliance. The
written statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the
plaint and when a defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively,
but answer the point of substance. If his denial of fact is not specific but
Civil Suit No. 1259/2018 7 of 18 evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be
admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is
necessary. The first paragraph of R. 5 is a reproduction of O. XIX, R. 13 of
the English rules made under the Judicature Acts. But in mofussil Courts in
India, where pleadings were not precisely drawn, it was found in practice that
if they were strictly construed in terms of the said provisions, grave
injustice would be done to parties with genuine claims. To do justice between
those parties, for which Courts are intended, the rigor of R. 5 has been
modified by the introduction of the proviso thereto. Under that proviso the
Court may, in its discretion, require any fact so admitted to be proved
otherwise than by such admission. In the matter of mofussil pleadings, Court,
presumably relying upon the said proviso, tolerated more laxity in the
pleadings in the interest of justice. But on the Original side of the Bombay
High Court, we are told, the pleadings are drafted by trained lawyers bestowing
serious thought and with precision. In construing such pleadings the proviso
can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances to prevent obvious injustice
to a party or to relieve him from the results of an accidental slip or
omission, but not to help a party who designedly made vague denials and
thereafter sought to rely upon them for non suiting the plaintiff. The
discretion under the proviso must be exercised by a Court having regard to the
justice of a cause with particular reference to the nature of the parties, the
standard of drafting obtaining in a locality, and the traditions and
conventions of a Court wherein such pleadings are filed."
In the case of Roop
Kumar Vs Mohan Thedani, ( 2003) 6 SCC 595 wherein the scope and meaning of
the Evidence Act has been discussed in great details, it was held as
follows:
"13. Section
91 relates to evidence of terms of contract, grants and other disposition
of properties reduced to from of document. This section merely forbids proving
the contents of a writing otherwise than by writing itself; it is covered by
the ordinary rule of law of evidence, applicable not merely to solemn writings
of the sort named but to others known some times as the "best evidence
rule". It is is in really declaring a doctrine of the substantive law,
namely, in the case of a written contract, that of all proceedings and
contemporaneous oral expressions of the thing are merged in the writing or
displaced by it”.
DELHI HIGH COURT
In ITDC Ltd. v. M/s. Chander Pal
Sood and Sons, 84 (2000) DLT 337 DB, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court of
held as under:
"17. Order 12 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...."
It may be noted that the
principles of Rule 6 clearly spelt out that judgment on the basis of admissions
of fact mad in the pleading or otherwise
could be passed. This clearly shall imply that admissions through
documents and by necessary implication shall also follow judgment on admission
and bare denial in pleading shall be meaningless.
In
Allora Electric & Cable Co. Vs M/s
Shiv Charan 72 (1998) DLT 761, Hon'ble High Court held that a party is
expected to expressly deny the fact which is within its knowledge and a general
denial is not a specific denial by "necessary implication". The
relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"11. The object of
this provision is to narrow the issues to be tried in the case and to enable
either party to know what the real point is to be discussed and decided. The
word "specifically" qualifies not only the word "deny" but
also the words "stated to be not admitted" and therefore a refusal to
admit must also be specifically stated. A defendant can admit or deny the
several allegations made in the plaint and if he decides to deny any such
allegations, he must do so clearly and explicitly. A vague or evasive reply by
the defendant cannot be considered to be a denial of fact alleged by the
plaintiff. A party is expected to expressly deny the fact which is within its
knowledge and a general denial is not a specific denial by "necessary
implication". In other words, the denial should be definite and
unambiguous.
The Delhi High Court in Universal Finance Traders Ltd Vs Lunar
Diamond Ltd & Ors, 193 (2012) DLT 613, has held that if the defence
taken by the defendant is devoid of any merit or of a kind which is not
recognized by law, a decree on admission can be passed.
Further, in the judgment
of Ved Prakash & Anr Vs M/s Marudhar
Services Ltd & Anr 2000 (54) DRJ 654, it was held by the Delhi High Court that the court is not powerless to
review the entire defence presented in the written statement and the admission
must be drawn from the totality of the circumstances. It was further held that
it would be a pedantic approach to maintain that an admission can only be
considered to have been made where a particular party specifically agrees to
the correctness of the statement made in pleadings by an opposite party.
Furthermore, the Court would not be justified to exercise the discretionary
powers where no triable issues have arisen.
The
Division bench of Delhi High Court in a matter reported as Vijaya Myne Vs Satya Bhushan Kaura, 142 (2007) Delhi Law Times 483
(DB), wherein it was observed :
"12. It is not necessary to burden this judgment by
extracting from the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement as the learned Single
Judge has accomplished this exercise with prudence and dexterity. Purpose would
be served by summarizing the legal position which is that the purpose and
objective in enacting the provision like Order 12 Rule 6, CPC is to enable the
Court to pronounce the judgment on admission when the admissions are sufficient
to entitle the plaintiff to get the decree, inasmuch as such a provision is
enacted to render speedy judgments and save the parties from going through the
rigmarole of a protracted trial. The admissions can be in the pleadings or
otherwise, namely in documents, correspondence etc. These can be oral or in writing.
The admissions can even be constructive admissions and need not be specific or
expressive which can be inferred from the vague and evasive denial in the
written statement while answering specific pleas raised by the plaintiff. The
admissions can even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.
No doubt, for this purpose, the Court has to scrutinize the leadings in their
detail and has to come to the conclusion that the admissions are unequivocal,
unqualified and unambiguous. In the process, the Court is also required to
ignore vague, evasive and unspecific denials as well as inconsistent pleas
taken in the written statement and replies. Even a contrary stand taken while
arguing the matter would be required to be ignored."
The
Division bench of Delhi High Court in Parivar
Seva Sansthan Vs Dr Ms Veena Kalra AIR 2000, Delhi 349 DB in which it was
observed:
"Bare perusal of the above Rule shows that it confers very
wide powers on the Court to pronounce judgment on admissions at any stage of
the proceedings. The admission may have been made either in pleadings or
otherwise. The admission may have been made orally or in writing. The Court can
act on such admissions either on an application of any party or on its own
motion without determining the other questions. Even constructive admission
firmly made can be made the basis. Any plea raised against the contents of the
documents only for delaying the trial being barred by Ss.91 and 92 of
the Evidence Act or other statutory provisions can be ignored. These
principles are well settled by catena of decisions in Dudh Nath Pandey Vs Suresh Chandra AIR 1986 SC 1509, in
Surjit s. Kazakhstan ISP Ltd. Vs Charanjit Lal 1998.2.DLT 476; Laxmi
kant vs MN Dastur 1998.4.AD (Delhi) 10. The use of the word any stage in the
rule itself shows that the intention of legislature is to give widest possible
meaning. Thus, mere framing of issues cannot by itself deter the Corut to pass
judgment on admissions under O.12 R.6 CPC ".
In
Laxmikant S (HUF) Vs MN Dastur Co.,
1998 Rajdhani Law Reporter 171, wherein it was observed in para 11:
"11. As noticed earlier the discretion has to be exercised
reasonably and not arbitrarily. If a triable issue of entitle to a judgment under
this Rule and discretion will necessarily be exercised against such claimant.
However, if the plea is malafide or preposterous, or vexatious and can be
disposed of without going into facts or is contrary to law or settled legal
position will it be justified for the Court to keep its hand off and allow the
game of the defendant to have its away? In my view the answer is No."
In P.P.A.
Impex Pvt. Ltd Vs. Mangal Sain Mittal, 166 (2010) Delhi Law Times 84
(DB), wherein it was observed in para 9 :
"9.
It appears to us that the approach to be taken under Order XII Rule 6 is akin
to what has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mechala Engineers &
Manufacturers Vs. Basic Equipment Corporation, 13 (1977) DLT 90 (SC)=(1976) 4
SCC 687, in the context of Order 37 of the CPC with regard to granting leave to
defend a summary suit. This is that if a defence amounting to moonshine has
been presented, it should be summarily dismissed by not granting leave to
defend and by decreeing the suit forthwith. The Courts are already groaning
under the weight of bludgeoning and exponentially increasing litigation. The
weight will unvaryingly increase if moonshine defence are needlessly permitted
to go to trial."
The
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court
had the occasion to interpret the expression 'otherwise' as used under
Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC in the case of Rajiv
Srivastava Vs Sanjiv Tuli and Anr reported as 119 (2005) DLT 202 (DB). It
was observed as below :
"Para
10. The use of the expression 'otherwise' in the aforesaid context came to be
interpreted by the Court. Considering the expression the Court had interpreted
the said word by stating that it permits the Court to pass judgment on the
basis of the statement made by the parties not only on the pleadings but also de
hors the pleadings i.e. either in any document or even in the statement
recorded in the Court. If one of the parties' statement is recorded under Order
10 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is also a statement
which elucidates matter in controversy. Any admission in such statement is
relevant not only for the purpose of finding out the real dispute between the
parties but also to ascertain as to whether or not any dispute or controversy
exists between the parties. Admission if any is made by a party in the
statement recorded, would be conclusive against him and the Court can proceed
to pass judgment on the basis of the admission made therein.............”
In Assocham
Vs Y.N Bhargava 185(2011) Delhi Law Times 296 wherein it was observed in para 7 :
"7.
When the Civil Court deals with an application under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC, the
Court is entitled to see, not only the pleadings but also documents in order to
find out the admitted position emerging from the record. This is because of the
expression 'or otherwise' as found in Order 12 Rule 6, CPC. The issue is now
sufficiently pronounced upon by the Supreme Court and the leading judgment in
this regard is the decision in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd.
Vs. United Bank of India, 2008 (7) SCC 120. In fact, subsequently, the Supreme
Court in the case of Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. Vs. Kamal Saroj Mahajan
& Anr., 118 ( 2005) DLT 396 (SC)=III ( 2005) SLT 131= (2005) 11 SCC 279, hs
gone to the extent of stating ( in a case where the premises were in Delhi and
falling outside the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) that even an implied
admission can be looked into for the purpose of Order 12 Rule 6, CPC....."
CONCLUSION
The provisions under Order 12 Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure
have evolved over the space of time and the principles of Rule 6 has been widened
in due course and what constitute admission by the other side is adequately
amplified. The scope of judicial discretion is also enlarged and it is
successively held now that the admissions can not only be in the pleadings, but
otherwise,, namely in documents, correspondence etc. These can be oral or in
writing. The admissions shall not only be clear or unambiguous but principles
of constructive admissions has also evolved. The admissions need not be
specific or expressive, but it can also be inferred from the vague and evasive
denial in the written statement while answering specific pleas raised by the
plaintiff. Not only that the admissions can even be inferred from the facts and
circumstances of the case. The Court is required to ignore vague, evasive and
unspecific denials as well as inconsistent pleas taken in the written statement
and replies. What therefore emerges from the foregoing discussion is that the
fact that any opposite party to a lis shall inevitably oppose the plea of
plaintiff and whether such a plenary denial shall be enough to relegate the
matter to trial? The answer is a clear “No”. Since bald and evasive denial is
meaningless and the admissions can be inferred not only on the basis of
pleadings and documents but also on the basis of facts and circumstances. The
principles under Order 12 Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure is not contingent
on the clear admissions of opposite parties, but the court is accorded the
amplitude to discern the same and even if admissions are inferred or
constructive admission is plausible, the courts can pass judgment ad decree
based on such inference. The very object of the principles is to truncate the
need of trial when admission by the opposite side is clear or the same can be
inferred. It is now no res integra
that relegating a party to suffer the peril of trial when the same is avoidable
in the touchstone of the above principles, in such a circumstances judicial
discretion is required to be applied.
----------------------
Anil K Khaware
Founder & Senior Associate
Societylawandjustice.com
No comments:
Post a Comment