Home Maxims & Terms Decree on admission meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Decree on admission

Decree on admission legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2016 CLC 1660 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
O. XII, R.6Decree on admissionPrincipleAdmissions must be clear and unambiguous

When admission was not clear and unequivocal and pleadings of parties raised serious preliminary pleas, which were likely to non-suit a party, Court in its discretion could refuse to pass a decree.

2015 PLD 472 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
O. XII, R.6Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, (VIII of 1972), S. 3Suit for specific performance of agreement to sellHigh Court appealDecree on admissionprincipleWords 'or otherwise' appearing in O.XII, R.6, C.P.C.Effect

Plaintiff filed application for passing of decree in his favour on the basis of admission made by defendant but Single judge of High Court dismissed the application

Validity

Admission on the basis whereof a decree was sought must be specific clear, unambiguous, categorical and definite

Admission made by original defendant did not meet criteria of an admission on the basis whereof a decree could be passed except that such admission was in connected suit

If provisions of O.XII, R.6, C.P.C. were read in a manner to restrict admission only to the extent of pleadings in suit wherein the court was asked to enter a decree in favour of plaintiff on the basis of admission, words 'or otherwise' would become redundant, therefore, there was no justification to confine admission to the extent of pleadings only

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed Single Judge

High Court appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2014 CLC 322 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
S. 12Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XII, R.6Suit for specific performance of agreement to sellDecree on admissionPrincipleWritten statement, consideration of

Plaintiff filed application for passing of decree in her favour on the basis of admission made by defendant company in its written statement

Validity

Admission must be taken as a whole and it was not permissible to rely on a part of admission ignoring the rest

Plaintiff asserted on the basis of statement of defendant company that it had agreed to execute lease but on the other hand plaintiff ignored remaining part of statement which showed that it was merely an offer for resolution of entire controversy by way of amicable solution

Court could not accept one portion of written statement as admission while ignoring rest of the statement where it had refuted claim of plaintiff

Neither written statement filed by defendant company nor subsequent statement filed by it in Court could be treated unqualified, unconditional, clear, specific and or unambiguous or unequivocal admission

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Decree on admission", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124944570

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Decree on admission"

CLC 2016
2015-October-12

2016 C L C 1251

FARIDA SAEED — Appellant Versus KHURRAM ZAFAR — Respondent

Court: Sindh
YLR 2009
Suit No.302 of 2008, decided on 18th September, 2008.

2009 Y L R 825

MEEZAN BANK LIMITED, KARACHI — Plaintiff Versus Messrs KHALID JAVAID AND BROTHERS and 11 others — Defendants

Court: Karachi
CLC 1989
Judicial Miscellaneous No. 58 of 1986, heard on 10th November, 1988.

1989 C L C 2117

PAKISTAN LTD. Applicant Versus Messrs IMAM & IMAM Ltd. Opponent

Court: Karachi
CLC 1993
J.M. 12 of 1989, ~ied on 24th September, 1989.

1993CLC913

BCCI‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus A1i ASBESTOS and others‑‑‑Defendants

Court: Karachi
MLD 2005
2004-March-15

2005 M L D 106

ABDUL MAJEED — Petitioner Versus FAQIR BAKHSH and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
CLC 2008
2006-May-26

2008 C L C 645

CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through District Coordination Officer, through Authorized Officer District (HRM), C.D.G.K. and 3 others — Appellants Versus FAQIR MUHAMMAD — Respondent

Court: Karachi
PLD 1966
Suit No. 172 of 1964, decided on 4th June 1965.

P L D 1966 (W

KASSAMALI ALIBHOY‑Plaintiff Versus Shaikh ABDUL SATTAR‑Defendant

Court:
PLD 1989
Suit No.919 of 1985 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.3747 of 1986, decided on 27th July, 1989.

P L D 1989 Karachi 645

MAC DONALD LAYTON & COMPANY LTD. — Plaintiff Versus Messrs UZIN EXPORT IMPORT ENTERPRISES and another — Defendants

Court:
CLCN 2017
N/A

2017 C L C Note 55

Syed ABBAS ALI SHAH through General Attorney — Petitioner Versus Ch. MOHAMMAD ZAHEER — Respondent

Court: Lahore
CLC 2013
2012-December-7

2013 C L C 535

Syed WAQAR HAIDER ZAIDI — Applicant Versus Mst. ALAM ARA BEGUM — Respondent

Court: Sindh