Decree on admissions requires clear, unequivocal admission; forfeiture dispute and equitable set-off prevented summary relief.

Relief under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is available only where the admission is clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. A mere admission that money was received did not justify a decree on admissions because the defendants also raised a substantive dispute over liability to refund and pleaded forfeiture of the security deposit for the plaintiff's alleged breach. As the forfeiture plea arose from the same transaction and could be considered as a form of equitable set-off, the dispute required trial rather than summary disposal. The application for judgment on admissions was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the defendants' plea regarding forfeiture of the security deposit could defeat such relief.

Analysis: Relief under Order XII Rule 6 is available only where the admission is clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. A mere admission of receipt of money does not by itself justify judgment on admissions if the written statement also raises a substantive dispute as to liability to refund and pleads forfeiture on the basis of the plaintiff's alleged breach. The defendants' case that the security deposit stood forfeited and that the dispute required trial meant that no decisive admission existed in favour of the plaintiff. The claim of forfeiture arose out of the same transaction and was capable of being examined as a plea in the nature of equitable set-off, which also made summary disposal inappropriate at this stage.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to a decree on admissions and the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was dismissed.

---