Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions arising from a civil suit O.S. No. 1165/2009 pending before the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The plaintiff, G.R. Shivaji, filed W.P. No. 16288/2014 challenging the Trial Court's order dated 11.02.2014 rejecting his application I.A. No. 6 under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC for judgment on admissions. The defendants, G.B. Madhookar and Sanjay M. Gurav, filed W.P. No. 33593/2014 challenging the same order insofar as it allowed I.A. No. 7 filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC to amend the written statement. The plaintiff sought a decree based on alleged admissions in the defendants' written statement regarding the suit property. The defendants opposed the application and sought to amend their written statement to clarify their stand. The Trial Court rejected I.A. No. 6, finding that the admissions were not clear and unequivocal, and allowed I.A. No. 7, permitting the amendment. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Trial Court's discretion was properly exercised. It observed that for a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, and the alleged admissions in the written statement did not meet this standard. Regarding the amendment, the court held that amendment of pleadings under Section 151 CPC is permissible to clarify or add new facts, even if it introduces an inconsistent plea, as long as no prejudice is caused that cannot be compensated by costs. The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the Trial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Judgment on Admissions - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Clear and Unequivocal Admission - The court held that for a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. In the present case, the alleged admissions in the written statement were not clear and unequivocal, and the Trial Court rightly rejected the application. (Paras 10-12) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Section 151 CPC - Permissibility - The court held that amendment of pleadings under Section 151 CPC is permissible to clarify or add new facts, even if it introduces an inconsistent plea, as long as it does not cause prejudice to the other party that cannot be compensated by costs. The Trial Court's order allowing amendment was upheld. (Paras 13-15) C) Civil Procedure - Discretionary Power - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - The court reiterated that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and should not be exercised when the admission is not clear and unequivocal. The Trial Court's discretion was not interfered with. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for judgment on admissions and allowing the defendants' application under Section 151 CPC to amend their written statement.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The common order dated 11.02.2014 passed by the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 1165/2009 rejecting I.A. No. 6 and allowing I.A. No. 7 is upheld.
Law Points
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC requires clear and unequivocal admission
- Amendment of pleadings under Section 151 CPC is permissible to clarify or add new facts
- Power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary
- Amendment cannot be refused merely because it introduces inconsistent plea
