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 CPC for 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 amendment of the plaint. The suit was for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants admitted the agreement in their written statement and sought judgment. The Trial Court rejected I.A. No.6, finding that the admissions were not clear and unambiguous. The plaintiff then filed I.A. No.7 under Section 151 CPC to amend the plaint, which was allowed by the Trial Court. The High Court, in its analysis, held that for judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, and the court must be satisfied that there is no other defence. The Trial Court's rejection of I.A. No.6 was upheld. Regarding the amendment, the High Court noted that the trial had commenced and the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requires leave of the court for amendment after trial commencement. The plaintiff had not sought leave and had invoked Section 151 CPC, which cannot be used when a specific provision exists. The High Court set aside the order allowing I.A. No.7 and dismissed the plaintiff's writ petition, allowing the defendants' writ petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Judgment on Admissions - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Clear and Unambiguous Admission - The plaintiff sought judgment on admissions based on alleged admissions in the written statement. The Trial Court rejected the application as the admissions were not clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. The High Court upheld the rejection, holding that for a judgment on admissions, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, and the court must be satisfied that there is no other defence. (Paras 5-7) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Section 151 CPC - Inherent Powers - After Commencement of Trial - The plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint under Section 151 CPC after commencement of trial. The Trial Court allowed the amendment. The High Court set aside the order, holding that after the commencement of trial, amendment can be allowed only with the leave of the court under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and the inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be invoked to circumvent the specific provision. (Paras 8-10) C) Civil Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 151 CPC - When Specific Provision Exists - The court held that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised when there is a specific provision in the Code dealing with the matter. Since Order VI Rule 17 CPC specifically deals with amendment of pleadings, the plaintiff ought to have filed an application under that provision, not under Section 151. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application for judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and in allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint under Section 151 CPC after commencement of trial.
Final Decision
W.P. No.16288/2014 filed by the plaintiff is dismissed; W.P. No.33593/2014 filed by the defendants is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.02.2014 is set aside insofar as it allows I.A. No.7, and the rejection of I.A. No.6 is upheld.
Law Points
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC requires clear and unequivocal admission
- Section 151 CPC inherent powers cannot be used to circumvent procedural bars
- amendment after trial commencement requires leave of court under Order VI Rule 17 CPC proviso
