Admission Must Be Clear, Unequivocal and Free From Triable Issues: Court
Shivaji Rathore 03-01-2026
The Calcutta High Court reiterated the three essential tests governing the exercise of judicial discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for passing a judgment on the basis of admissions.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Krishna Rao held that a decree on admission cannot be granted mechanically and must satisfy strict judicial parameters, particularly where third-party rights and allegations of fraud are involved.
Three Tests Summarised by the Court
The Court summarised the governing principles as follows:–
Judicial Conscience :– The Court must be fully satisfied that passing a judgment on admission is justified.
Nature of Admission:– The admission must be clear, unequivocal, unconditional and unambiguous.
Admission as a Whole: – Admissions must be read in entirety unless the admitted portion is clearly severable from the remaining claims. The Court emphasised that a judgment on admission is passed without trial and permanently curtails the defendant’s right to contest the claim on merits.
Background of the Case
The Court was dealing with an application filed by the plaintiff seeking a judgment on admission on the ground that the plaintiff had entered into Terms of Settlement with defendant no.1, wherein it was admitted that:-
The lease of the suit premises had expired by efflux of time, and The plaintiff was the rightful lessee of the suit property. Defendant nos. 2 to 5 had also admitted through affidavits that they were sub-lessees under defendant no.1 and that the head lease had expired. Based on these admissions, the plaintiff claimed entitlement to a decree against all occupants, including defendant nos. 13 and 14, who were claiming rights through sub-leases.
Objections by Contesting Defendants:- Defendant nos. 13 and 14 opposed the application, contending that: There was no admission on their part; They had independent tenancy claims arising out of sub-leases;
Allegations of fraud and collusion were raised against defendant nos. 2 to 5 and the plaintiff; and Separate civil suits for declaration of tenancy rights were pending before the City Civil Court, where interim status quo orders had been granted.
Reliance was also placed on Section 115 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to argue that surrender of a lease does not prejudice an existing sub-lease.
Supreme Court Precedent Relied Upon
The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd., wherein it was held that:
“A judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant… Unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court should not be exercised.”
Court’s Findings:- On merits, the Court held that:
Defendant nos. 13 and 14 had raised triable issues regarding their sub-lease rights; Allegations of fraud and collusion required adjudication; Existing injunction and status quo orders passed by the City Civil Court could not be ignored; and No clear or unequivocal admission existed on the part of defendant nos. 13 and 14. Accordingly, the Court refused to exercise discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Decision
The application seeking judgment on admission was dismissed, holding that the matter required a full trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Awam Marketing LLP v. M/s Orient Beverages Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: CS 85 of 2016; GA 4 of 2021
Court: Calcutta High Court (Original Side)
Judge: Justice Krishna Rao
Decision Date: 05 December 2022
