Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, as original plaintiffs, filed Regular Civil Suit No.224 of 2003 against the respondents. The respondents appeared through two different persons claiming to be power of attorney holders: Mr. Girija Shankar Upadhyay filed a written statement contesting the suit, while Mr. Uday Shankar Upadhyay filed another written statement admitting the plaint contents. The petitioners applied under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for a decree on the admission contained in Uday Shankar's written statement. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that Girija Shankar was the proper power of attorney holder. On revision, the High Court upheld the dismissal but on a different ground: the defendant no.2 was a minor aged 15 years, represented by his mother as guardian, but the provisions of Order 32 CPC regarding representation of minors were not followed. The court held that without compliance with Order 32, a decree on admission cannot be passed against a minor. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Decree on Admission - Order 12 Rule 6 CPC - Minor Defendant - Compliance with Order 32 CPC mandatory - The court held that a decree on admission cannot be passed against a minor defendant unless the provisions of Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are strictly followed, as the minor must be properly represented by a guardian appointed by the court. (Para 4) B) Civil Procedure - Power of Attorney - Authority to Make Admissions - Dispute Regarding Authority - The court noted that where there is a dispute as to which power of attorney holder is authorized to represent the defendant, the admission made by one cannot be the basis for a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC without determination of authority. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a decree on admission can be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when the defendant is a minor and the provisions of Order 32 have not been complied with, and when there is a dispute regarding the authority of the person making the admission.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the trial court's order refusing to pass a decree on admission, but on the ground that the provisions of Order 32 CPC were not complied with as defendant no.2 was a minor.
Law Points
- Decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC cannot be passed against a minor defendant without compliance with Order 32 CPC
- Power of attorney holder's authority must be established before admission can be relied upon
