Clear admission required for judgment on admission; disputed share transfer issues could not be dismissed without trial.

Delhi HC held that a suit cannot be dismissed at the threshold under Order XII Rule 6 or Order XV Rule 2 CPC unless there is a clear, unambiguous and unconditional admission. In a dispute over ownership and transfer of 500 shares, non-production of some share transfer deeds did not amount to a conclusive admission because the plaintiffs relied on annual returns and the register of members as supporting evidence. Allegations of forgery and the competing counter-claim raised disputed questions of fact that could not be resolved summarily and required trial. The application for dismissal was therefore rejected for absence of an unequivocal admission.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit could be dismissed at the threshold under Order XII Rule 6 and Order XV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of alleged admissions and non-production of share transfer deeds.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the ownership and transfer of 500 shares, which involved contested questions of fact. The Court held that a judgment on admission can be passed only when the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional. Non-production of some transfer deeds did not, by itself, constitute a conclusive admission, particularly when the plaintiffs relied on annual returns and the register of members as additional evidence of transfer. The Court also noted that the alleged forgery of documents could not be determined summarily and required evidence, and that disputed facts could not be finally resolved without trial. The existence of a counter-claim regarding the same shares further showed that the controversy required adjudication on evidence.

Conclusion: The application for dismissal of the suit under Order XII Rule 6 was rejected because no clear and unequivocal admission was established.

---