Decree on admissions requires a clear, unequivocal admission; disputed foundational facts defeat review and summary relief.

An alleged admission can sustain a decree on admissions only when it is clear, unequivocal and unqualified; selective reliance on a balance sheet or company statement is insufficient where the written statement and other pleadings keep the core liability disputed. The Delhi HC noted that issues concerning the existence of the underlying instruments, the nature of the transaction, mortgage, alleged fraud and enforceability required trial, so Order XII Rule 6 CPC could not be invoked on an isolated reading of material. A review was also declined because no apparent error was shown, and the limitation argument did not resolve the contested foundation of the claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was non est for want of valid signatures on the vakalatnama and affidavit. (ii) Whether the earlier judgment required review on the ground that the balance sheet and the managing director's statement amounted to a clear and unequivocal admission justifying a decree on admissions and that the limitation question stood concluded by acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was non est for want of valid signatures on the vakalatnama and affidavit.

Analysis: The record showed a duly stamped vakalatnama executed by the company through its managing director, a subsequent vakalatnama by another counsel, an accompanying no-objection certificate, and an affidavit on the early-hearing application bearing the managing director's signature. These documents negatived the contention that the appeal was not properly instituted or was unsupported by authority.

Conclusion: The contention that the appeal was non est was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier judgment required review on the ground that the balance sheet and the managing director's statement amounted to a clear and unequivocal admission justifying a decree on admissions and that the limitation question stood concluded by acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Review was declined because the alleged admission could not be treated in isolation from the written statement, the reply to the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the unresolved issues concerning the existence of the ICDs, the nature of the transaction, the mortgage, alleged fraud, and enforceability of the claim. The Court held that an enquiry under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot proceed on a selective reading of material or on an assumption that liability is established when the very foundation of the claim remains contested. The limitation argument did not cure the defect, since the disputed nature of the liability itself remained for trial.

Conclusion: No ground for review or recall was made out, and the earlier judgment was not shown to suffer from an apparent error.

Final Conclusion: The review petition failed, and the prior appellate judgment was left undisturbed, leaving the underlying disputes to be determined in trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree on admissions can be sustained only on a clear, unequivocal and unqualified admission, and a review will not lie where the alleged admission is intertwined with disputed foundational facts that require trial.

---