Judgment on admission

The Trial Court passed the impugned order based on the admission, raising the question of whether this admission was sufficient to support the decision

The Trial Court merely on the admission passed the impugned order

Validity

Where there is an admission in a pleading (such as written statement) there is no requirement for further proof

Leave to defend application could be dismissed where liability was admitted by CEO of the company

The appellant company at later stage could not disclaim its CEO from acting on its behalf considering the appellant company had repeatedly accepted / endorsed the CEO as its representative

The appellant company was estopped by its own conduct from claiming a juristic separative between itself and its CEO at such a belated stage

A piercing of the veil of incorporation would no doubt show the CEO and the appellant company to be one and the same i.e. CEO being the only person with whom the respondent had interacted

The signing of the agreement, cheques and all correspondence by the appellant company with the respondent were conducted through its CEO

The appellant company failed to show any illegality with the impugned order which was rendered entirely on admissions made by both the appellant company and its CEO through pleadings made under oath

The new plea of separating the CEO and the appellant company was also only taken at the appellate stage and was never raised earlier during trial proceedings

The CEO by purporting to substitute himself into the appellate proceedings had shown proximity with the appellant company

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

The Trial Court passed the impugned order based on the admission, raising the question of whether this admission was sufficient to support the decision

The Trial Court merely on the admission passed the impugned order

Validity

Where there is an admission in a pleading (such as written statement) there is no requirement for further proof

Leave to defend application could be dismissed where liability was admitted by CEO of the company

The appellant company at later stage could not disclaim its CEO from acting on its behalf considering the appellant company had repeatedly accepted / endorsed the CEO as its representative

The appellant company was estopped by its own conduct from claiming a juristic separative between itself and its CEO at such a belated stage

A piercing of the veil of incorporation would no doubt show the CEO and the appellant company to be one and the same i.e. CEO being the only person with whom the respondent had interacted

The signing of the agreement, cheques and all correspondence by the appellant company with the respondent were conducted through its CEO

The appellant company failed to show any illegality with the impugned order which was rendered entirely on admissions made by both the appellant company and its CEO through pleadings made under oath

The new plea of separating the CEO and the appellant company was also only taken at the appellate stage and was never raised earlier during trial proceedings

The CEO by purporting to substitute himself into the appellate proceedings had shown proximity with the appellant company

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Judgment meant judicial decision of judge; it need not necessarily deal with all matters in issue in a suit but only those issues, decision of which has the effect either of adjudication of all matters in controversy or results in a final disposal of the suit

As per record the defendants agreed to the contention of the plaintiff under terms of O. XV, R.1, C.P.C.

Court was under legal obligation to implement the judgment in letter and spirit

Court decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff with direction to defendant not to interfere in the case property

In case of interference the plaintiffs had no option other than to knock the door of Court for implementation of the judgment

Under the Code of Civil Procedure there was no distinction between the judgment on admission or judgment on merit

Judgment did not mean only disposal of the matter but also determining the rights of a party

Petition was allowed and the case was remanded to the Trial Court with direction to decide the application afresh.

Petitioner also filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the respondents and sought cancellation of gift deed alleging that same was obtained through fraud

One of the respondents made an application under O.XII, R. 6, C.P.C. before Trial Court for passing a judgment and decree in her favour

Trial Court dismissed the said application

Appellate Court directed the Trial Court to decide the contention of respondent

Trial Court decreed the suit of respondents

Held, that in case in hand there was no denial to the factum that the disputed house was owned by "S.A.", deceased father of the parties, who gifted out the same to the respondent through gift deed

When respondent instituted a suit for declaration, on refusal of her entitlement, father of respondent i.e. "S.A.", the donor ,appeared before Trial Court and in a categorical and unambiguous way recorded his detailed statement on oath in favour of respondent and the Trial Court had reproduced the said statement of deceased "S.A." in the impugned judgment in verbatim

In case in hand "S.A.", father of the parties appeared before the Trial Court and after recording his categorical detailed statement, he again appeared in presence of counsel for the parties and the Trial Court, on the said date, cross questioned him in order to ascertain his mental condition and soundness of his mind

Observation regarding the mental soundness of "S.A." recorded by Trial Court had not been challenged before any forum at the relevant time and even the petitioners did not move any application before the competent forum under Mental Health Ordinance, 2001, seeking declaration of unsoundness or soundness of "S.A.", because oral substance had no value, especially when the said person while appearing before the Trial Court twice on different dates with a gap of almost two years, did not seem to be of unsound mind

Statement of "S.A." in a categorical manner stated that he was affectionate and kind father towards his children and he had already transferred valuable properties in the names of his sons and daughters and had gifted out the disputed house in lieu of services to his widowed daughter "G.A."/plaintiff

Such part of statement of the deceased "S.A." had not been denied by the present petitioners or other respondents

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Pleadings itself cannot be taken as an evidence, but there is an exception to this rule, that when the pleadings, more particularly, a written statement, either wholly or in part, admits a claim of plaintiff or any other adversary, then it falls within the ambit of 'admission' as envisaged in Article 30 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Order XII, R. 6, C.P.C. specifically deals with the above situation where a Court can pronounce a judgment or order upon an application of a party, in view of admission made in the pleadings (including written statement) or by any other permissible manner.

In order to invoke the provisions of O. XII, R. 6, C.P.C. it was absolutely necessary that the admission relied upon be clear, unambiguous, unqualified and unequivocal, and further that the purported admission had to be read as a whole; one could not be allowed to rely on a part (of the admission) ignoring the rest.

Pleadings have no evidentiary value unless plaintiff and or defendant had led evidence in support or defence of their pleadings, but exception to the said rule was that pleadings or a written statement could be considered when there was an admission on the part of defendant

Judgment on the basis of admission made in written statement could be passed.

Admission is to be accepted or rejected as a whole.

Family Court dismissed the suit for recovery/possession of house in lieu of dower to be paid by husband in terms of Column No. 16 of Nikahnama

Plea of wife was that an agreement was executed by husband in her favour relating to transfer of house as dower

Husband claimed that the said dower was paid in cash

Trial Court dismissed the suit on the admission of wife that dower had been received by her

Validity

Trial Court had not mentioned in what perspective such admission was made and what was the mode of payment of dower to the wife in terms of her admission

Admission of wife had been considered in piecemeal before using the same for decision

Admission had to be rejected or accepted as a whole which had not been done by the courts below

Constitutional petition was partly allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh.

Pleadings though do not themselves have evidentiary value, unless the Plaintiff and or Defendant, as the case may be, enter the witness box and lead the evidence in support or defence of their pleadings; but, an exception to such rule is, that pleadings or a Written Statement can be considered when there is an admission on the part of Defendant; because, depending upon the facts of each case, even on the basis of Written Statement a Judgment as envisaged under R. 6 of O. XII of C.P.C., can be pronounced.

Court could, depending on facts and peculiar circumstances of a case, pass a judgment and decree on basis of admission which was beyond pleadings and such admission must be specific, unambiguous and definite in nature.

Contention of Provincial Government (defendant) was that it was a sham transaction as the defendants had no right to sell the land in question

No document was produced before the Trial Court to show that the defendants had any title to enter into the subject sale deed

Corrigendum was required to be registered for correction in the sale deed

Certificate, which being a photostat copy, could not have been accepted in evidence by the Trial Court being an unauthentic document

Validity

Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence which illegality had also been maintained by the Appellate Court

Revision was allowed by the High Court by setting aside judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

Non-filing of written statement did not amount to any admission as contemplated under O.XII, R.6, C.P.C. enabling Court to examine the same and pass judgment and decree thereof

Mere debarring defendants from filing written statement did not ipso facto disentitle defendants to proceed further in suit, including cross-examination of plaintiff's witness as and when the witness would come for his examination-in-chief, including arguing before Court either on application or at the time of final disposal

Where written statement was not filed, Court was a little more cautious in proceeding under O.XII, R.6, C.P.C. as contended by plaintiff, which otherwise was not relevant and before passing a judgment

Court must have ensured that even if the facts set out in plaint were treated to have been admitted, a judgment and decree could not possibly be passed without proving of the facts so pleaded in plaint

Such was only when for Court for recorded reasons was fully satisfied that there was no fact which needed to be proved, Court could conveniently pass a judgment and decree against defendants who had not filed written statement

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit was dismissed on the ground of failure of the plaintiff to prove execution of agreement to sell and payment of sale consideration

Validity

Attorney for one of the defendants had admitted the claim of the plaintiff who was not cross-examined by the contesting defendants

Sale consideration had not been proved

Plaintiff remained silent for considerable long period and his suit was beyond the period of limitation

Agreement to sell could not be relied upon without proof of sale consideration

Alleged sale had been made through an unregistered document for which tangible evidence was required but such evidence had not been produced

Decree should have been granted to the extent of defendant who had admitted the claim of plaintiff

No issue existed between the plaintiff and those who had admitted his claim

Plaintiff was not bound to adduce evidence against the defendant who had admitted his claim

Court had power to grant decree at any stage where admission of fact had been made either in pleadings or otherwise

Facts admitted need not to be proved

Judgments and decrees of courts below were modified to the extent of defendant who had admitted the claim of the plaintiff and decree was granted to such extent and to the extent of remaining defendants the same were kept intact.

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of damages and it was decreed in his favour on the basis of statement made by defendant

Validity

Even if there was admission, plaintiff was required to prove his entitlement for recovery of claimed amount as damages and the same was prima facie lacking

Trial Court recorded judgment which was a patent mistake on its part and none should suffer for an act or mistake of a court

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court and remanded the case to Trial Court for decision afresh after recording of evidence

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Contention of the plaintiffs was that the defendants had admitted to negligence in their written statement, and therefore, they were entitled to a decree on basis of such admission under provisions of O. XII, R.6, C.P.C.

Validity

Admission to constitute basis of a judgment or decree must be unequivocal, and in the present case, only if handwritten report / case summary or any document, the contents whereof were binding on the defendants, had contained a clear admission of liability judgment in favour of the plaintiffs could have been pronounced

Defendants had not denied the existence or contents of the case summary and had prefered an explanation regarding the same, and whether such explanation was plausible or otherwise could only be determined after recording of evidence, and the fact remained that by accepting a particular state of affairs to exist at a certain point in time, the defendants had not admitted to any liability for negligence and in any event the quantum of damages sustained still required proof

Application seeking judgment on admission, was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of plaintiffs during present appellate proceedings, was that, notwithstanding the other legal aspects of the case, only on basis of allegations made in the plaints and narrations made in the written statements, the grant of a decree was justified in terms of O.XII, R.6, C.P.C. (Judgment on admission of defendants)

Validity

Plaintiffs had submitted no applications as required under O.XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. and the Trial Court proceeded with the suits by framing issues and partially recording evidence and then ex parte decree was passed

Party which failed to make an application in a suit for order or judgment on basis of admission of facts or found it suitable and appropriate to proceed with the suit could not later be permitted to claim order or judgment on such contention

Plea of judgment on admission was limited to proceedings in a suit and that too, without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties and once proceedings were finalized, then provision of O.XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. would lose significance

Appeal of a defendants was allowed, and case was remanded to Trial court.

prerequisites for passing a judgment on admission of any party stated.

Court on application of either party could dispose of such part of suit regarding which no dispute existed between parties.