Judgment on admission requires a clear, unconditional and specifically pleaded admission; tentative meeting minutes are not enough.

Order 12 Rule 6 CPC permits a judgment on admission only where the admission is clear, categorical, conscious, deliberate, unambiguous, unconditional, and specifically pleaded. The Supreme Court held that minutes of a meeting recording tentative figures, further verification, and a later determination of the final amount did not amount to an admission to pay the claimed sum. It also held that relief under Order 12 Rule 6 could not be sustained on a different, unpleaded admission. The decree based on admission was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a judgment on admission could be passed on the basis of the minutes of the meeting dated 9 December 2000.

Analysis: Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an enabling provision and can be invoked only where there is a clear, categorical, conscious and deliberate admission that is unambiguous and unconditional. The minutes relied upon by the plaintiff did not contain any admission by the defendant to pay the claimed amount; they recorded tentative figures, contemplated further verification, and stated that the final figure would be arrived at later. The specific basis pleaded for the application was also found to be incorrect, and the Court held that the High Court could not sustain the decree on some other unpleaded admission.

Conclusion: No judgment on admission could be sustained, and the order granting relief under Order 12 Rule 6 was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A judgment on admission can be granted only when the admission is clear, unambiguous, unconditional, and specifically pleaded, and a court cannot found such relief on a tentative or unpleaded admission.

---