Sheikh Abedin v. Iqbal Ahmed- Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Judgment on Admission
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 -Order XII Rule 6 - A decree can be passed under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC on the basis of an admission, whether it is contained in the pleadings or elsewhere. Such an admission may be in writing or may even be oral. No particular form of admission is necessary. The purport of Rule 6 Order XII CPC is to enable the party to obtain speedy justice to the extent of the relevant admission which, according to the admission of the other party, he is entitled for. Admission on which judgment can be claimed must be clear and unequivocal one and such admission must be either of the entire claim made in the suit or even for a party of the claim for which decree can be passed separately. Under the amended provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Court on its motion and without an application by a party can proceed to pass a decree on an admission. (Para 14-16)
Case Info
Case name: Sheikh Abedin v. Iqbal Ahmed & Anr.
Case no. SLP (C) No. 19868/2022, arising from RSA No. 92/2022, High Court of Delhi).
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Judgment/order date (Supreme Court): 07‑05‑2026.
Caselaws and citations referred:
- Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120.
Statutes / laws referred:
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
- Order XII Rule 6 (judgment on admissions).
- References to the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1977 (in context of the amended Order XII Rule 6).
Brief three‑sentence summary:The case arises out of a civil dispute over possession of an open plot in Joga Bai Extension, New Delhi, where the plaintiffs claimed title through documents from the original owner and asserted that the defendant, Sheikh Abedin, was only a caretaker/chowkidar. The trial court decreed possession to the plaintiffs on an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, relying on clear admissions in the defendant’s own criminal complaint and evidence that he had acknowledged the plaintiffs’ ownership and his caretaker status, which findings were affirmed by the first appellate court and then by the Delhi High Court in second appeal. The Supreme Court, noting the settled law on judgment on admissions and finding no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of three courts regarding the defendant’s admissions, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and directed that the execution proceedings should now proceed expeditiously.