Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from two writ petitions filed against a common order dated 11.02.2014 passed by the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.1165/2009. The plaintiff, G.R. Shivaji, filed W.P.No.16288/2014 challenging the rejection of his application I.A.No.6 under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking judgment on admissions. The defendants, G.B. Madhookar and Sanjay M. Gurav, filed W.P.No.33593/2014 challenging the allowance of I.A.No.7 filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit property. The suit property is a shop premises in Bengaluru. The plaintiff claimed ownership and sought eviction of the defendants. The defendants filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's title and asserting their own rights. The plaintiff contended that the defendants had admitted certain facts in the written statement, entitling him to a judgment on admissions. The Trial Court rejected I.A.No.6, holding that the alleged admissions were not clear and required trial. It allowed I.A.No.7, appointing a Commissioner to note the physical features. The High Court, after hearing both sides, upheld both parts of the Trial Court's order. It held that judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be passed only when admissions are clear and unambiguous, which was not the case here. Regarding I.A.No.7, the court held that the Trial Court had inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to appoint a Commissioner to ascertain the physical features of the property, and the order was not perverse. The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, finding no grounds for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Judgment on Admissions - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - The court held that judgment on admissions can be passed only when the admissions are clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. In the present case, the alleged admissions in the written statement were disputed and required trial, hence the Trial Court rightly rejected the application. (Paras 5-8) B) Civil Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 151 CPC - Appointment of Commissioner - The court held that the Trial Court has inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to appoint a Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit property, especially when the plaintiff sought to ascertain the existing condition of the property. The order allowing I.A.No.7 was upheld. (Paras 9-10) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The court held that the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 will not interfere with interlocutory orders unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice or the order is perverse. The impugned orders were found to be just and proper. (Paras 11-12)
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 plaintiff's application under Section 151 CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit property.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned order dated 11.02.2014 passed by the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.1165/2009 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC
- judgment on admissions
- inherent powers under Section 151 CPC
- scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
