A PROJECT REPORT ON

LAWS RELATING TO ADMISSION UNDER CIVIL PROCEDURE

CODE

PROJECT SUBMITTED ON:26TH OF OCT., 2013

PROJECT SUBMITTED TO:DR. SWATHI MEHTA

PROJECT SUBMITTED BY:_______________________________

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR(C.G.)

____________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
SCOPE OF ORDER 12
OBJECT OF ORDER 12
ISSUES ADDRESSED UNDER ORDER 12:

DISCRETION OF THE

COURT

JUDGMENT UPON ADMISSIONS MADE 'OTHERWISE"

ORDERS
EVICTION MATTER
'AT ANY STAGE'
CO-PLAINTIFFS
WITHDRAWAL OF ADMISSION
APPEAL
NOTICE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Topic Law relating to Admission under Civil Procedure Code plays a pivotal
role as far as the present legal scenario of the development of Civil Procedure Code is
concerned. I hope I have tried my level best to bring in new ideas and thoughts regarding
the basics of this topic to professors.

As this topic drew my attention and attracted me to choose this as a project topic
and examine it in present day scenario. Not to forget the deep sense of regard and
gratitude to my faculty adviser, Dr. Swathi Mehta who has played the role of a
protagonist, who has always given me the courage and wisdom to march ahead with my
topic, as far as the completion of this project is concerned.

Date : 26th Oct., 2013

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIRAll India Reporter
Co....Company
CPC.Civil Procedure Code
Ltd...Limited
MLJMadras Law Journal
Prof..Professor
SC...Supreme Court
SCC...Supreme Court Cases
Supp......Supplement

TABLE OF CASES
1. AG Industries v. Rishabh Manufacturers AIR 1972 MP 147

2. AgenciaCj Ltd v. Custodian BNU 1970 A Com 11

3. B Taneja v. S Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396
4. Bai Chanihal v S. Jalauddin (1971)2 SCR 171; AIR 1971 SC 1081.
5. Bharm Overseas Construction Pvt Ltd V University Teachers Co-op Housing Society Ltd
AIR 1991 Del 20.
6. Brigadier HS Ocema v Slate Bank of India 80 (1999) OLT 117.
7. C. Appamma v C. Seethamma AIR 1972 AP 62
8. Hollis v. Burton, (1892) 3 Ch 226
9. Kesar Verdha v. Manvat Rao AIR 1951 Hyd 63
10. Madho Prasad v. Gajudhar (1885) 11 Cal 111
11. Manisha Commercial Ltd V N.R. Dongre
12. Mellor v Sidebottom (1877) 5 CD 342
13. Prem v Udairam (1918) 45 Cal 138
14. Prem Sukh Das v. Uday Ram (1918) 45 Cal 138
15. S Naval Singh v. Preet Singh, AIR 1951 Nag 259
16. Shakuntala v. Sardari Lal AIR 1972 P&H 29
17. State Bank of India v Midland Industries AIR 1988 Del 83
18. Sushila v. Mahendra AIR 1960 Bom 117
19. Throp v Holdsworth (1876) 3 CO 637
20. Tildesley v Harper (1877) 7 CD 403.
21. Uttam Singh Duggal v. Union Bank of India, AIR 2000 SC 2740

INTRODUCTION

It has been rightly said what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be
presumed to be so. The adoption of the procedure laid down in O 12 results in saving the cost of such
proof and in cheapening and shortening the litigation. Admissions are dealt in O 12 of Civil Procedure
Code. Admissions may be made before the suit or after filing of suit. The object of obtaining
admissions is to do away with the necessity of proving facts that are admitted and the judgement and
decree may be passed on such admissions.1

SCOPE OF THE RULE

The rule enables either party at any stage of the suit to obtain judgment or an appropriate order
either on motion by him or by the court acting suo motu on admissions made by the other party. Either
party may, by availing himself of the rule, get rid of so much of the suit as to which there is no
controversy.2 Since the rule permits the passing of the judgment at any stage without waiting for
determination of other questions, it follows that there can be more than one decree passed at different
stages.3 The rule secures that if there is no dispute between the parties, and if there is on the pleadings
or otherwise such an admission as to make it plain that the plaintiff is entitled to a particular order or
judgment, he should be able to obtain it at once to the extent of the admission. The rule, however, is
permissive, it does not preclude a party, who does not avail himself of it and proceeds to trial in the
ordinary way, from relying at the trial on the admissions made by the opposite party.4 The rule does not
contemplate interim orders; it only contemplates judgments or decrees to the extent that the claim is
admitted.5
Before a court can act under 0 12, r 6, the admission must be clear, unambiguous,
unconditional and unequivocal.6 This rule however, predictably invests discretion with the court that is
even if there is an unequivocal admission by a party but the passing of a judgment would work
injustice on it, judgment could be declined. Where complicated and vexed questions of law arise and
are issues between the parties, the passing of summary judgment under this rule may not be in the
interest of justice.7
1

O 12 R 6 of CPC
Throp v Holdsworth (1876) 3 CO 637
3
Bai Chanihal v S. Jalauddin (1971)2 SCR 171; AIR 1971 SC 1081.
4
Tildesley v Harper (1877) 7 CD 403.
5
C. Appamma v C. Seethamma AIR 1972 AP 62
6
State Bank of India v Midland Industries AIR 1988 Del 83
7
Manisha Commercial Ltd V N.R. Dongre
2

In a dispute between a contractor and a cooperative society, an arbitration award was passed
and filed in the court. No objection to the award was filed by the housing society, and though the
contractor filed objection for modification of the award, he had also made an application to make
certain portion of the award rule of the court. There was no question of modification or remitting the
award to the extent of a certain amount which had been awarded to the contractor and that part of the
award was clearly severable, without affecting any other portion of the award, irrespective of objection
filed by the contractor. To that extent, the award could not be set aside and had to be made a rule of the
court and there was no bar to passing successive decrees. The court had power to proceed to
pronounce judgment on that portion of the award which is admitted and is severable.8
OBJECT OF THE RULE
The court should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this rule, as the object is to enable a
party to obtain speedy judgment. The object of the rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy
judgment at least to the extent of the admissions or the defendant, entitled that relief to the plaintiff.
Where other party had made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and
wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making
such admission to succeed.9 Such an admission in the written statement could be in the respect of the
entire claim made in the suit or even for a part of the claim for which decree could be passed
separately. A bare reading of Rule 6 would indicate that the court either on the application of any party
or on its own motion and without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties
proceed to give judgment as it may think fit having regard to the clear and unequivocal admission.10

DISCRETION OF THE COURT

A judgment on admissions is not a matter of right, but is in the discretion of the court. If a
case involves questions which cannot be conveniently disposed of on a motion under this rule, the
8

Bharm Overseas Construction Pvt Ltd V University Teachers Co-op Housing Society Ltd AIR 1991 Del 20.
Ullom Singh Duggal v Union Bank of India AIR 2000 SC 2740
10
Brigadier HS Ocema v Slate Bank of India 80 (1999) OLT 117.
9

court may, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse the motion. 11 Before a court can act under this rule
the admission relied on must be clear and unambiguous and the amount due and recoverable must be
due and recoverable in the action in which the admission is made.12
If there is a clear and unambiguous admission by the defendant as to part of the plaintiff's
claim, the court has jurisdiction to enter judgment as to that part of the plaintiff's claim, and it is in its
discretion, having regard to the nature of the case and the allegations contained in the pleadings and
the admissions made in the court, whether it should allow the plaintiff to proceed to prove the
remainder of his claim.13 There is no hard and fast rule that where the defendant admits part of the
plaintiff's claim and denies the rest of the claim, the court should, if it gives judgment under this rule
for the plaintiff as to the portion of the claim admitted by the defendant, refuse to allow the plaintiff to
proceed with the suit as to the remainder of his claim.
In the United Telephone Co v Donohoe,14 the plaintiff sued the defendant for
infringement of a patent, claiming injunction and damages. The defendant admitted ten instances of
infringement, but denied he had committed any others. The plaintiffs thereupon moved for judgment
upon the admissions in the pleadings. In the court of first instance, the vice chancellor granted an
injunction against infringement by the defendant of the plaintiff's patent, but he refused an inquiry as
to damages. The court of appeal held that the plaintiffs were entitled to an inquiry as to damages, but
that it must be limited to the instances of infringement admitted; and that the judgment having been
obtained upon a motion for judgment upon the pleadings, the plaintiffs were bound to take the
negative as well as the affirmative allegations therein. Referring to this case, Sanderson q, said in the
Calcutta case cited above,15 that the question whether the Judge who in the first instance heard the
application, would have had jurisdiction to give judgment on the admissions and to allow the plaintiffs
to proceed to prove the rest of their claim as to the other alleged infringement. Its, if such an
application had been made, was not before the court.

ADMISSION ON PLEADING:
Admissions in pleadings are either actual or constructive. Actual admissions consist of facts
expressly admitted either in pleadings or in answer to interrogatories. 16 In a case where execution of a
11

Mellor v Sidebottom (1877) 5 CD 342

Prem v Udairam (1918) 45 Cal 138
13
Prem Sukh Das v. Uday Ram (1918) 45 Cal 138
14
(1886) 31 CD 399.
15
Prem v Udairam (1918) 45 Cal 138
16
Order 11 Rule 22 of CPC
12

negotiable instrument was admitted in the written statement, but the instrument could not be produced
for reasons beyond the control of the party, judgment were passed on the admission.17
Admission by a wife in her written statement that she did not go to her husband for two years
after the date of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights is a good substitute for evidence and the
husband in such a case need not prove the wife's default. 18 But if the admission in a written statement
is subject to a condition, it must either be accepted subject to the condition of not at all.
However, if the plaintiff's case is in two parts, the defendant may admit one part without
prejudice to his denial of the right to the other part 19. Constructive admissions, on the other hand, are
admissions which are inferred implied from pleadings as a consequence of the foolproof pleading
adopted.20 Constructive admissions usually arise where a defendant has not specifically dealt with
some allegation on of fact in the plaint of which he does not admit the truth.
In applying the present rule in India, it is to be noted that, where a plaintiff applies for a decree
upon constructive admissions in a written statement, the court may in its discretion refuse to pass the
decree if it thinks in the special circumstances of the case that the defendant must not be held to have
admitted facts not specifically denied in his written statement. 21No declaration of title can be given on
the basis of an unregistered deed of sale, even though the fact of its execution is admitted by the
defendant, as in law such a deed can convey no title.22
An admission by the defendant that the plaintiff was entitled to certain security deposits if he
furnished a no demand certificate is not unconditional and unequivocal, and no decree can be passed
on the basis of that admission. This is so even though the condition might be void under s 28 of the
Contract Act. There can be no judgment on admissions in matrimonial cases, 23 where it is alleged in
the written statement that the suit is not instituted by a competent person. In the absence of material to
show his competency, a decree under 0 12, r 6 cannot be passed.

JUDGMENT UPON ADMISSIONS MADE 'OTHERWISE" THAN ON PLEADINGS:

The word 'or otherwise' in sub Rule 1 means admissions not only made in-pleadings, but also
de hors the pleadings. Such admissions may be made either expressly or constructively. A judgment
may be given under this rule not only upon admissions made in the pleadings, but upon admissions
17

AgenciaCj Ltd v. Custodian BNU 1970 A Com 11

Shakuntala v. Sardari Lal AIR 1972 P&H 29
19
AG Industries v. Rishabh Manufacturers AIR 1972 MP 147
20
Order 8 Rules 3,4 &5 of CPC
21
Madho Prasad v. Gajudhar (1885) 11 Cal 111
22
Kesar Verdha v. Manvat Rao AIR 1951 Hyd 63
23
Sushila v. Mahendra AIR 1960 Bom 117
18

otherwise made. The words 'or otherwise' in this rule are not confined to admissions made under Rule
1 or 4 of this Order, but are of general application and justify the giving of an immediate judgment
when an admission is made by a matter of facts which show that the defendant has no defense to the
action. A judgment may be given under this rule even upon a verbal admission if it is clearly proved.
This is now legislatively confirmed by the words 'orally or in writing' 'in sub-r (1). Such oral
admission must be definite and unambiguous and must be satisfactorily established. When the
statement made in the proceedings in the board of directors meeting, as well as the pleadings read
together, leads to unambiguous and clear admission, the same can be relied upon in passing the
judgment under this rule.24

ORDERS WHICH MAY BE MADE UNDER THIS RULE:

If there was no dispute between the parties, and if there was on the pleadings such an
admission as to make it plain that the plaintiff was entitled to a particular order, he should be able to
obtain that order at once upon motion. It must, however, be such an admission of facts as would show
that the plaintiff is clearly entitled to the order asked for, whether it be in the nature of a decree, or a
judgment, or anything else. The rule was not meant to apply when there is any serious question of law
to be argued. But if there is an admission on the pleadings which clearly entitles the plaintiff to an
order, then the intention was that he should not have to wait, but might at once obtain any order which
could have been made on an original hearing of the action.25
Where, however, a specific issue is raised in spite of admissions on the part of some of the
defendants, the plaintiff is bound to lead evidence on that issue. An order amounting to what is called a
preliminary decree in this Code may appropriately be made under this rule upon a simple motion.

EVICTION MATTER:
The factor which deserves to be taken into consideration in order to enable the court to
pass a decree in plaintiff's favour as regards possession in such like suits are:

24
25

Uttam Singh Duggal v. Union Bank of India, AIR 2000 SC 2740

S Naval Singh v. Preet Singh, AIR 1951 Nag 259

10

1. existence of relationship of lesser or lessee or entry in possession of the suit property by

defendant as a tenant;
2. determination of such relation in any of the contingency as envisaged in the Transfer of
Property Act.

'AT ANY STAGE' :

A plaintiff may move for judgment upon admissions in the written statement at any stage
of the suit and notwithstanding that he has joined issue on the defence. Under this rule, the court can,
at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings, pass a judgment on the basis of admissions made by the
defendant. The only condition is the admission should be unequivocal, clear and positive.26

CO-PLAINTIFFS:
An application under this rule for an order against a defendant on admissions of fact must
be made by all the plaintiffs, and not merely by some of them. If the application is made by some of
the plaintiffs only, it must be refused. In the opinion of authors this view is not correct, if the plaint
comprising several plaintiffs is instituted, it really makes no difference, if one of the plaintiff acting for
all, moves an application under 0 12, r 6. In deserving cases it should be allowed. Absence of other
plaintiff joining the application should not deter the court in permitting the application.
WITHDRAWAL OF ADMISSION:
Where it is shown that an admission was made by mistake, the party may be allowed to
amend his pleadings under 0 6, r 17, for the purpose of withdrawing it upon such terms as to the court
may appear just.27 However, where the execution of tenancy was admitted initially in an eviction
petition, the subsequent plea of the tenant that tenancy agreement was obtained by fraud, is not
sustainable. The parties cannot be permitted to resile from the admissions made; otherwise the whole
system of judicial administration will be a mockery.
APPEAL:
An order rejecting an application for judgment on admission is a 'Judgment' within the
meaning of cl 15 of the Letters Patent, and is appealable. Affidavit of signature- An affidavit of the
26
27

B Taneja v. S Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396

Hollis v. Burton, (1892) 3 Ch 226

11

pleader or his clerk, of the due signature of any admissions made in pursuance of any notice to admit
documents or facts, shall be sufficient evidence of such admissions, if evidence thereof is, required.28
NOTICE
Notice to produce documents29 shall be in Form No 12 in Appendix C, with such
variations as circumstances may require. An affidavit of the pleader, or his clerk, of the service of any
notice to produce, and of the time when it was served, with a copy of the notice to produce, shall in all
cases be sufficient evidence of the service of the notice, and of the time when it was served.
It is always desirable, when a document is in the possession or power of the opposite party, to
give him notice to produce the same, for unless such notice is given, secondary evidence of the
document cannot be given; and where no notice to produce has been given, no adverse inference
should be drawn against a party from non-production of documents in his possession.30

CONCLUSION
O 12 of Civil Procedure Code deals with admissions which have a great deal of
importance in the field of civil cases which are filed in the courts everyday. It is an important stage for
both plaintiff and the defendants. The rule is not meant to apply when there is any serious question of
law to be argued. But if there is an admission on the pleadings which clearly entitles the plaintiff to an
order, then the intention was that he should not have to wait, but might at once obtain any order which
could have been made on an original hearing of the action. In the present project work I have tried to
bring out the various aspects involved in the area of admissions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS AND TREATISES
1. Sarkars, The Law of Civil Procedure Code, (Wadhwa & Company, 11th edn,
28

Rule 7
Rule 8
30
AIR 1946 Mad 151
29

12

2006)
2. Y. Rama Rao, Practical Guide to the code of Civil Procedure Code, (Asia Law
House,4th edn, 2004)
3. Takwani C.K., Civil Procedure, 5th Edn., 2003, Eastern Book Co. , Lucknow.

LIST OF DICTIONARIES
1. The concise oxford English dictionary, 10th edn. Oxford university press
2. Random house Websters concise college dictionary, random house

reference

and information publishing, inc, 14th ed, 2003

3. Garner, Brayan A., Blacks Law DictionaryI, 7th Edn. , West Group.
4. Whortons Law Lexicon, 14th Edn., Univershal Law Publishing co.

13