Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Judgment on Admission in Property Dispute, Holds Order XII Rule 6 CPC Is Discretionary and Not Mandatory

Case Name: Harmohan Singh v. Sukhdyal Singh Grewal and Others
Date of Judgment: January 6, 2015
Citation: CR No. 4076 of 2007
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that the provision is discretionary and not mandatory. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon ruled that a decree on admission can be passed only when the admission is clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, and not where complex factual disputes or questions of title and authority exist. The Court observed that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is intended to shorten litigation in straightforward cases but cannot be invoked when multiple triable issues arise or where the admission itself is under contest.

Summary: The petitioner, Harmohan Singh, had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated September 12, 1993, pertaining to House No. 322, Sector 9, Chandigarh. He moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, seeking judgment on the basis of an alleged admission made by one defendant, Sukhdyal Singh Grewal, through his general power of attorney. The trial court, by order dated April 28, 2007, declined to pass a decree, holding that triable issues existed and that the alleged admission was not sufficient to warrant judgment.

The High Court affirmed that interpretation, explaining that the use of the word “may” in Order XII Rule 6(1) CPC indicates that it confers discretion, not an obligation, upon the court. Justice Parsoon noted that the alleged admission was made not by the defendant personally but through an attorney whose authority to admit was disputed by other co-defendants and claimed to have been revoked. Further, the property was a joint Hindu family dwelling house belonging to several heirs of the deceased owner, and issues regarding ownership, executant authority, and limitation were yet to be adjudicated. The Court held that when such vital issues remain unsettled, the discretion to decline judgment on admission is properly exercised.

Decision: Concluding that the trial court had acted prudently, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC must be exercised judiciously and that admissions forming the basis of such decrees must be explicit, clear, and beyond controversy. The impugned order was upheld in full.