Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a decree for specific performance granted on admissions where the sellers disputed substituted agreement pages, the consideration received and the financial records relied upon. Acknowledging a transaction did not unequivocally admit all the disputed contractual terms. Order XII Rule 6 required clear and unconditional admissions and remained discretionary. These substantial disputes required trial, and depositing the balance consideration after the appellate decree did not itself establish readiness and willingness.
Issues
- Whether the pleadings and other statements constituted unequivocal admissions warranting specific performance without trial.
- Whether disputed financial records and statements in bail proceedings supported judgment on admissions.
- Whether subsequent deposit of the balance consideration established readiness and willingness.
Provisions considered
- Order XII Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Judgment on admissions is discretionary and requires clear, categorical and unconditional admissions assessed in their factual context. (¶¶ 25, 29–37)
Held
- An admission that an arrangement existed could not be isolated from the pleaded disputes concerning substituted pages, signatures and the payment received. The alleged admissions did not unequivocally establish the contract asserted by the plaintiffs. (¶¶ 27–28, 33)
- Disputed balance sheets and audit records required examination at trial. The application relied on a counsel’s statement in bail proceedings, without laying the necessary foundation for the additional matters used to decree the suit or allowing an adequate explanation. (¶ 33–37)
- Although admissions may be oral or written and arise otherwise than in pleadings, the broad power under Rule 6 must be exercised within the factual framework. Serious disputes going to the root of this transaction could not be resolved through a roving inquiry on that application. (¶ 29–37)
- Readiness and willingness required pleading and proof. Neither permitting amendment of the plaint nor depositing the balance after the appellate decree by itself established that requirement. The identity of the person who deposited the money was left undecided. (¶ 38–39)
- All findings were confined to the application for judgment on admissions; the parties’ contentions in the suit remained open for an expedited trial. (¶ 42)
Result
Appeal allowed. Division Bench decree set aside and rejection of the Order XII Rule 6 application restored; application dismissed without costs. Deposited balance consideration, with accrued interest if any, to be refunded. Suit to proceed expeditiously on its merits.