Introduction
The Supreme Court has reiterated the principles governing the passing of a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Hon’ble Court has clarified that an admission need not be confined to the pleadings in the Suit. It may be oral or written and may also be found in some other proceeding, including criminal proceedings, provided that the admission is clear and unequivocal.

Facts in Brief
The dispute arose in respect of an open plot of land bearing No. P-229 out of Khasra No. 431/260, Joga Bai Extension, Nafis Road, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, Batla House, New Delhi admeasuring 260 sq. yards.

The Respondents, who were the original Plaintiffs, claimed that they had purchased the suit property from one Dilbar Husain Malik by way of a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Affidavit dated 27th November 2000. According to the Plaintiffs, the Petitioner was appointed as a caretaker/Chowkidar of the suit property and was permitted to stay there only for taking care of the property.

When the Petitioner refused to vacate the property, the Plaintiffs filed a Suit for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the Suit, the Plaintiffs filed an Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree on the basis of admissions made by the Petitioner.

The admission relied upon was contained in a complaint dated 28th July 2009, which resulted in FIR No. 178 of 2009. In the said complaint, the Petitioner had stated that the suit property belonged to Respondent No. 1 and that he was occupying the property as a caretaker/Chowkidar at the instance of Respondent No. 2.

On the basis of this admission, the Trial Court allowed the Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and directed the Petitioner to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property. The First Appellate Court affirmed the order. The Second Appeal filed before the Delhi High Court was also dismissed.

The Petitioner thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

Issue for Consideration
Whether a civil court can pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admissions made by a party in criminal proceedings.

Findings
The Supreme Court examined Order XII Rule 6 CPC and held that a decree can be passed on the basis of admissions made either in the pleadings or otherwise. Such admission may be in writing or may even be oral. No particular form of admission is necessary.

The Court noted that the Petitioner had, in a complaint dated 28th July 2009 which led to FIR No. 178 of 2009, admitted that the suit property belonged to Respondent No. 1 and that he was occupying the same as a caretaker/Chowkidar.

The Petitioner attempted to contend that the papers had not been read over to him by the police. However, the High Court had found that this statement did not amount to a denial of the contents of the complaint or the FIR. There was no categorical denial of Respondent No. 1’s ownership or of the Petitioner’s status as a caretaker.

The Supreme Court held that the entire controversy turned on whether the Courts below were justified in relying upon the admission made by the Petitioner in the criminal proceedings. The Court found that the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and High Court had assigned cogent reasons for relying upon the said admission.

The Court further reiterated that the object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to enable a party to obtain speedy justice to the extent of the admitted claim. The admission must be clear and unequivocal and may relate either to the entire claim or to a part of the claim which can be decreed separately.

Relying on Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120, the Court observed that the rule should not be interpreted narrowly as its object is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment where the claim stands admitted.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and directed the execution proceedings to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Court clarified that admissions made in criminal proceedings can also be considered by civil courts while passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. In other words, a party cannot escape the consequences of a clear admission merely because it was made outside the pleadings in the civil Suit. The Hon’ble Court held that where a person has clearly admitted that the property belongs to another and that his occupation is only as a caretaker, the owner should not be made to undergo a full trial for recovering possession. In such cases, the Court can grant appropriate relief on admission itself¹.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar