Srinagar, August 9: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that disputes relating to ownership, possession and adverse possession cannot ordinarily be decided at the threshold on the basis of alleged admissions when the pleadings involve disputed questions of fact.
The High Court observed that a judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) can be passed only when the admission relied upon is explicit, clear, categorical, unambiguous, unequivocal and unconditional.
The observation was made by a Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal while dismissing a petition challenging an order passed by the 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu, whereby the trial court had refused to grant judgment on admissions and to reject a counterclaim at the preliminary stage.
The petitioner had sought interference with the trial court’s order, contending that the pleadings contained admissions sufficient to enable the court to decide the matter without recording evidence.
However, the High Court declined to accept the contention and emphasized that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and can be exercised only where the admission is clear and leaves no scope for doubt or further adjudication.
Justice Oswal observed that where the alleged admissions are specifically disputed, intertwined with the counterclaim, or susceptible to more than one interpretation, the court cannot resort to a summary determination.
The High Court made it clear that such circumstances require the parties to lead evidence and the disputed issues must be adjudicated through a full-fledged trial.
The Court further noted that claims involving ownership and adverse possession may raise substantial questions of fact and law, particularly where the parties have taken conflicting stands in their pleadings.
Accordingly, the High Court found no legal infirmity in the order passed by the trial court refusing to grant judgment on admissions at the threshold.
The petition was therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to establish their respective claims and defences before the trial court in accordance with law.
The ruling reiterates that Order XII Rule 6 CPC cannot be used as a substitute for a trial where the alleged admission is not unequivocal and the dispute requires determination of contested factual issues.(KNC)
