RAJIV GHOSH versus SATYA NARYAN JAISWAL

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 06-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 458 : 2025 INSC 467
Rajiv Ghosh 
v. 
Satya Naryan Jaiswal
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9975 of 2025)
07 April 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In view of the unequivocal admission made by the defendant 
in his written statement, whether the High Court was right in 
decreeing the suit for recovery of possession applying Or.XII 
r.6 of the CPC thereby, affirming the decree of eviction passed 
by the trial court.
Headnotes†
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or.XII, r.6 – Judgment on 
admissions – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997  – 
s.2(g)  – Suit for recovery of possession – Admission of 
certain facts by the defendant in his written statement – In 
view thereof, the plaintiff filed application u/Or.XII r.6 for 
decree upon admission – Trial Court decreed the suit – 
Appeal filed by the defendant, dismissed by High Court – 
Correctness:
Held: r.6(1) empowers the court to pronounce a judgment upon 
admissions made by parties without waiting for the determination 
of other questions – The words “or otherwise” used in Or.XII, 
r.6 are wide enough to include all cases of admissions made in 
the pleadings or de hors the pleadings – In the present case, 
having regard to the clear and unequivocal admission made by 
the defendant in his written statement, the High Court committed 
no error much less any error of law in decreeing the suit applying 
Or.XII r.6. [Paras 35, 44]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or. XII r.6 – Nature of – Exercise 
of discretion u/Or. XII r.6:
Held: The provisions of r.6 are enabling, discretionary and 
permissive – They are not mandatory, obligatory or peremptory – 
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 
459
Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal
This is also clear from the use of the word “may” in the rule – The 
powers conferred on the court by this rule are untrammeled and 
cannot be crystallized into any rigid rule of universal application – 
They can be exercised keeping in view and having regard to the 
facts and varying circumstances of each case – If the court is of 
the opinion that it is not safe to pass a judgment on admissions, or 
that a case involves questions which cannot be appropriately dealt 
with and decided on the basis of admission, it may, in exercise 
of its discretion, refuse to pass a judgment and may insist upon 
clear proof of even admitted facts. [Paras 28-30]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or. XII r.6 – Object of – Code of 
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. [Paras 25, 26]
Words and Phrases – ‘Otherwise’ – Civil Procedure Code, 
1908 – Or. XII r.6 – Discussed. [Para 37]
Case Law Cited
ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood and Son (2000) 84 DLT 337 
(DB) : (2000 AIHC 1990) – approved.
Uttam Singh v. United Bank of India [2000] Supp. 2 SCR 187 : 
(2000) 7 SCC 120; Bai Chanchal v. United Bank of India [1971] 
SCR 2 171 : AIR 1971 SC 1081; Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan 
[1999] Supp. 2 SCR 258 : (1999) 8 SCC 396 – referred to.
Sivalinga v. Narayani, AIR 1946 Mad 151; Sher Bahadur v. Mohd. 
Amin, AIR 1929 Lah 569; Throp v. Holdsworth, Jessel, reported, 
(1876)3 Ch D 637 (640); Brown v. Pearson (1882) 21 Ch D 716 – 
referred to.
List of Acts
Civil Procedure Code, 1908; West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 
1997; Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976.
List of Keywords
Order XII, Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Judgment 
on admissions; Admission in written statement; Recovery of 
possession; Eviction decree; Original tenant; Statutory right of 
inherited tenancy; Written statement; Decree upon admission; Legal 
heir of original tenant; Admission made in pleadings; Rejoinder; 
Non-admitted claim.
460
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
(Civil) No. 9975 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2024 of the High Court 
of Calcutta in FAT No. 7 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Ramnath Jha, Amit.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Delay condoned in filing Special Leave Petition.
2.	
This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High 
Court at Calcutta (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) dated 14.11.2024 in 
FAT 7 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2024 by which the appeal filed 
by the petitioner-herein came to be dismissed thereby affirming the 
judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Vth Bench, City Civil 
Court at Calcutta, District Calcutta dated 2nd December 2023 in title 
suit no. 1068 of 2021.
3.	
For the s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.