TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a preliminary decree could be passed on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the admissions were said to be conditional and the appellant disputed her share in the estate. (ii) Whether an application for judgment on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be entertained at any stage of the suit, including after framing of issues.
Issue (i): Whether a preliminary decree could be passed on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the admissions were said to be conditional and the appellant disputed her share in the estate.
Analysis: The governing principle is that judgment on admissions can be granted only where the admissions are clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. The disputed claim of the appellant did not erase the admitted entitlement of the respondent to an undisputed share. The existence of controversy over the appellant's asserted additional share did not make the respondent's admitted share conditional in law. A court deciding such an is not required to wait for trial on issues already admitted, and the admitted portion of the respondent's entitlement can be crystallised by a preliminary decree.
Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to judgment on admissions, but only to the extent of the admitted share.
Issue (ii): Whether an application for judgment on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be entertained at any stage of the suit, including after framing of issues.
Analysis: Order 12 Rule 6 expressly permits the court to act at any stage of the suit on the basis of admissions of fact. The power is not confined by the stage of pleadings or by the fact that issues have been framed. The rule is wide in terms, though the admissions relied upon must still satisfy the requirements of clarity and absence of ambiguity. Accordingly, a court cannot reject such an application merely because the suit has progressed beyond an initial stage.
Conclusion: The application under Order 12 Rule 6 was maintainable at any stage of the suit, including after framing of issues.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part. The preliminary decree was sustained with modification of the declared shares, and the respondent's entitlement was affirmed to the extent found admitted.
Ratio Decidendi: Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be invoked at any stage of the suit, and a decree on admissions can be passed to the extent of clear and unconditional admissions notwithstanding disputed issues on the remaining claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
