Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Civil Judge, Thane's order dated 12th September 2024 that rejected his Application for judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC in RCS No. 240 of 2023. The Petitioner claimed to be the original allottee of a tenement in Navi Mumbai and alleged that Defendant Nos. 4 and 5, with the help of Defendant No. 3 society, prepared forged documents including a Deed of Apartment dated 10th October 2016 and a Conveyance Deed dated 30th November 2016, transferring the property to Defendant No. 4 through impersonation. CIDCO revoked the NOC and permission to sell upon discovering the fraud. In his Written Statement, Defendant No. 4 admitted in paragraphs 22(j) and (m) that the Plaintiff was the real owner and he had purchased the property from an impersonator. The Petitioner argued these were clear admissions warranting judgment under Order XII Rule 6. The Civil Judge rejected the Application, finding no clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admission. The High Court, after hearing arguments and examining the pleadings, held that the admissions in the Written Statement were unequivocal and satisfied the requirements of Order XII Rule 6. The Court set aside the Civil Judge's order and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the Application on merits.
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Civil Judge's order rejecting an Application for judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) -- The Petitioner-Plaintiff sought a declaration that forged Deed of Apartment and Conveyance Deed were null and void -- Defendant No. 4's Written Statement contained admissions in paragraphs 22(j) and (m) acknowledging the Plaintiff as real owner and purchase from an impersonator -- The Civil Judge held these were not clear admissions -- The High Court held the admissions were unequivocal and satisfied Order XII Rule 6 requirements -- The Court set aside the Civil Judge's order and directed reconsideration of the Application
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of Consideration was whether the Civil Judge erred in rejecting the Application for judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC by finding no clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admission in Defendant No. 4's Written Statement
Final Decision
The High Court Partly allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the Civil Judge's order dated 12th September 2024, and remanded the matter to the Civil Judge for reconsideration of the Application for judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC on merits
Law Points
- Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 (CPC) empowers courts to pass judgment on admissions when admissions are clear
- unambiguous
- and unconditional -- The test for admission under Order XII Rule 6 is whether the admission is unequivocal and leaves no doubt about the party's liability -- Admissions in pleadings can form the basis for judgment without requiring a full trial -- The court must examine the pleadings as a whole to determine if there are clear admissions -- The principle that fraud vitiates all transactions applies when documents are forged through impersonation
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 109
Writ Petition No. 17668 of 2024
Mr. Harshad Rajeshirke, Nikhil Rajeshirke, Saurabh Rajeshirke, Tejasvi Salvi for Petitioner, Mr. Soham Bhalerao for Respondent No. 1, Mr. Nilesh S Bagade for Respondent No. 4, Mr. Rajaram Jaiswar for Respondent No. 7
City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (CIDCO), The Secretary, A-1 Type Apartment Owners Association, Rajaram Ramdeo Jaiswar, Vivek Rajeshirke Agarwal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil litigation involving property dispute with allegations of forged documents and impersonation
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought Writ Petition under Article 226 to challenge Civil Judge's order rejecting Application for judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC
Filing Reason
Civil Judge rejected Application for judgment on admission, prompting Writ Petition to High Court
Previous Decisions
Civil Judge, Thane passed order dated 12th September 2024 rejecting Application for judgment on admission in RCS No. 240 of 2023
Issues
Whether the Civil Judge erred in rejecting the Application for judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC by finding no clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admission in Defendant No. 4's Written Statement
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that Defendant No. 4's Written Statement contained clear admissions in paragraphs 22(j) and (m) acknowledging Plaintiff as real owner and purchase from impersonator, satisfying Order XII Rule 6 requirements -- Civil Judge erred in requiring admissions to cover all allegations including forgery -- Admissions were unequivocal and left no doubt about liability
Ratio Decidendi
Admissions in pleadings that are clear, unambiguous, and unconditional can form the basis for judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC without requiring a full trial -- The court must examine the pleadings as a whole to determine if admissions are unequivocal -- In this case, Defendant No. 4's admissions in the Written Statement regarding Plaintiff's ownership and purchase from impersonator were sufficient to satisfy Order XII Rule 6 requirements
Judgment Excerpts
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 12th September 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Thane, on an Application (Exhibit 19) in RCS No. 240 of 2023, whereby the said Application preferred by the Petitioner-Plaintiff for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be rejected -- In the said Writ Statement, Defendant No. 4, has, however, made clear and categorical admissions, especially in paragraph 22(j) and (m) of the Written Statement to the effect that the Plaintiff is the real owner of the suit property and Defendant No. 4 had purchased the suit property from an impersonator of the Plaintiff -- The learned Civil Judge was of the view that to pass a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, the admission must be clear, unambiguous and unconditional -- Mr. Rajeshirke, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the learned Civil Judge committed a manifest error in declining to pass a decree on admission by taking an erroneous view that there was no clear, unambiguous and unconditional admission
Procedural History
Petitioner filed suit RCS No. 240 of 2023 seeking declaration that forged Deed of Apartment and Conveyance Deed were null and void -- Petitioner filed Application for judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC -- Civil Judge rejected Application on 12th September 2024 -- Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 17668 of 2024 under Article 226 challenging the order -- High Court heard arguments on 3rd December 2025 -- High Court pronounced judgment on 26th February 2026
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XII Rule 6
- Constitution of India: Article 226
