Headline
The Supreme Court of India shed light on limits of judgments based on Ambiguous Admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Summary
The Supreme Court of India ruled that judgments cannot be based on unclear and ambiguous admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), mainly when they involve mixed questions of fact and law. A judgment without a trial based on such grounds is not considered valid, as shown in a tenancy dispute between the landlord and tenants over inherited tenancy rights.
Key Facts
- Case Name: Rajesh Mitra @ Rajesh Kumar Mitra & Anr. v. Karnani Properties Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos. 3593-3594 of 2024.
- Judges Name: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
- Under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997,the issue was that the landlord asked for eviction based on alleged tenancy rights expiring 5 years after the death of the mother in 2009 .
- The tenant replied in defense that the rights were inherited under the 1956 Act, with no 5 year limitation.
Legal Insights
The Supreme Court of India stated that a judgment made on vague or legally defective admissions should not be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code( CPC). Under this, the admission that extinguished tenancy rights under the old law was improper.
Impact
The ruling of the Supreme Court safeguards the parties from judgments based on unclear admissions, mainly where legal rights may still exist despite repealed legislation.
Why It Matters
It shows the significance of clear, unconditional admissions and stops misuse of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC ensuring fair trials.
Source
