Judgment on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 requires clear judicial admissions, not disputed evidentiary material.

Order 12 Rule 6 CPC permits judgment only on clear and unequivocal judicial admissions. Evidentiary admissions, including TDS certificates and other material relied on by the plaintiff, are not sufficient by themselves to decree a suit at an interlocutory stage. Where the defendant raises a defence of adjustment or set-off and disputes the underlying facts, the matter requires trial and cannot be resolved before evidence is completed. The Delhi High Court therefore held that a decree on admissions was not maintainable on the facts and dismissed the application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for recovery could be decreed at the interlocutory stage under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of TDS certificates and other alleged admissions, despite disputed facts requiring evidence.

Analysis: Order 12 Rule 6 permits judgment on admissions only where there is a clear and unequivocal judicial admission. Evidentiary admissions stand on a lower footing and do not by themselves justify disposal of the suit before the completion of evidence. Admissions under the Evidence Act are not conclusive, and where the defendant raises a defence of adjustment/set-off based on alleged embezzlement, the matter involves disputed questions of fact. Such disputes require trial and cannot be resolved merely from material produced at an intermediate stage of the suit.

Conclusion: The application for decree on admissions was not maintainable on the facts and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit cannot be decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of evidentiary admissions when the defence raises disputed questions of fact requiring trial and the alleged admissions are not clear judicial admissions.

---