Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Judgment on Admissions: An Analysis

Introduction

Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Code”) deals with the principle of judgment based on admissions. This provision empowers courts to deliver judgments based on clear admissions made by the parties without waiting to determine other disputed questions. The primary objective of this provision is to minimise litigation, ensure the speedy disposal of cases, and provide fast, simple, and inexpensive justice.

Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states:

“(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 just, having regard to such admissions.

(2)Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with that judgment and bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.”

Amendment

Order XII Rule 6 of the Code underwent a significant amendment in 1976 to broaden its applicability. The revision clarified that oral admissions are encompassed within its scope, ensuring that courts could rely on both written and verbal acknowledgments made by the parties. Further, the amendment granted courts the authority to pronounce judgments not only upon a party’s application but also on their motion. This change aimed to enhance judicial efficiency and further the ends of justice by enabling judges to exercise this provision proactively as a tool for equitable decision-making.

Scope and Objective of the Provision

In Rajiv Ghosh vs. Satya Narayan Jaiswal, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9975 of 2025^[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored the importance of this provision and held that “Order XII Rule 6 of the 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 based on admission of a fact made in the pleadings or otherwise whether orally or in writing.” ^[1]

Nature and Types of Admissions

While the Code does not specifically define “admission, ”Section 15 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides a broad definition, recognizing admissions as statements whether oral, documentary, or electronic that suggest an inference regarding a fact-in-issue or a relevant fact.

Under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, admissions may be:

·     Express or implied (constructive)

·     In writing or oral

·     Made before the institution of the suit, after the suit is filed, or during the pendency of proceedings

·     Contained in pleadings or otherwise

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Karam Kapahi and Ors. vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Ors, AIR 2010 SC 2077^[2] clarified that the phrase “or otherwise” in Order XII Rule 6 of the Code has a significantly broader scope than it has in Order XII Rule 1 of the Code. The Court emphasized that, under this Rule, admissions can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and that admissions in response to interrogatories are also covered under this Rule.

Discretionary Nature of the Provision

However, the Courts have consistently held that the power under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. This is evident from the Rule’s use of the words “may” and “as it may think fit,” reinforcing judicial flexibility in its application. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.M.Asif vs. Virender Kumar Bajaj, AIR2015 SC 3678 emphasised^[3] that the language of the provision particularly the words “may ”and “make such order...” indicates that judgment on admission is not an absolute right but rather a matter of judicial discretion. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Court held that when a “defendantraises substantial objections that go to the root of the case, it may not be appropriate for Courts to exercise discretion under Order XII Rule6”. In such cases, the courts may be required to assess whether the defence presented is plausible, which may require a full-fledged trial for proper determination.

Similarly, in Karan Kapoor vs. Madhuri Kumar (2022) 10 SCC 496^[4], the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that the legislative intent behind Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is to ensure that courts exercise this power only when specific, clear, and categorical admissions off acts and documents are on record. If such admissions are absent or ambiguous, the court retains the authority to refuse to invoke the provision. the court finds that passing a judgment on admissions would not be safe or that the case involves complex legal questions that cannot be resolved solely based on admissions, it may refuse to invoke Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. In such instances, the court may insist on clear proof of even admitted facts before proceeding with judgment.

Requirement to Prove an Admitted Fact

Admissions of facts under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code are subject to the proviso under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code, which grants courts the discretionary power to require an admitted fact to be proved through other means if deemed necessary. Additionally, Section 53 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 states that facts admitted need not be proved in proceedings where parties agree to such admissions at the hearing. However, the court retains discretion to insist on proof of admitted facts if it finds it necessary to meet the ends of justice.

Dismissal of Suit Based on Admissions

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saroj Salkan vs. Huma Singh and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 6389 of 2025^[5], held that the courts, under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, on its own motion, can dismiss the suits based on admissions made. The Apex Court further reiterated that the said proviso not only authorizes the courts to pass a decree regarding an admitted claim but also to dismiss a suit based on admissions.

Conclusion

Order XII Rule 6 of the Code plays a crucial role in expediting litigation by enabling courts to pronounce judgments based on clear admissions, bypassing the need for prolonged legal proceedings on other disputed issues. However, the Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that this power is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously to ensure fairness in legal proceedings. The provision should only be invoked when the admissions are clear, unambiguous, and categorical, leaving no room for the party, making them succeed otherwise. While the Rule serves the vital purpose of ensuring speedy justice and preserving judicial resources, it must be balanced against the fundamental right of litigants to have their cases heard and decided on merits preventing its misuse and safeguarding the integrity of the legal system.

References

[1] Rajiv Ghosh vs. Satya Naryan Jaiswal, SpecialLeave Petition (Civil) No. 9975 of 2025

[2] Karam Kapahi and Ors. vs. Lal Chand PublicCharitable Trust and Ors, AIR 2010 SC 2077

[3] S.M. Asif vs. Virender Kumar Bajaj, AIR 2015SC 3678

[4] Karan Kapoor vs. Madhuri Kumar (2022) 10 SCC496

[5] Saroj Salkan vs. Huma Singh and Ors, CivilAppeal No. 6389 of 2025

‍