Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |    

Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Decree  A Suit On admission must be clear and unambiguous: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court has provided clarity on the interpretation of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C), emphasizing that admissions for a decree on admission must be clear and unambiguous. The court’s observations shed light on several critical aspects of civil procedure and jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The court’s observation on Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C was significant. The judgment stated, “The legislative intent behind this provision is to avoid unnecessary trials and ensure speedy disposal of litigation based on admissions in pleadings. However, the admission should be clear and unambiguous, without leaving room for further evidence or clarification.”

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the jurisdiction of regular civil courts in commercial disputes, particularly in light of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court noted, “Sections 6 and 7 of the Act require a harmonious interpretation to avoid inconsistency between these provisions. While inherent lack of jurisdiction would vitiate proceedings, mere lack of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction may not.”

The Interpretation of the term “used” in Section 2(1)©(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act was another key point of discussion in the judgment. The court observed, “The term ‘used’ denotes ‘actually used,’ not ‘likely to be used’ or ‘ready for use.’ This interpretation includes disputes related to license fees or other periodic payments for the use of immovable property.”

The judgment also dealt with the application for attachment before judgment, stressing the importance of due process. The court stated, “An application for attachment before judgment should not be summarily rejected without issuing a show-cause notice or passing a conditional order of attachment. Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII C.P.C must be adhered to.”

This judgment serves as a valuable reference for legal practitioners, highlighting the need for precision in admissions and a comprehensive understanding of jurisdiction in commercial disputes. It reaffirms the importance of adhering to procedural rules, ensuring a fair and just legal process.

Legal experts and practitioners have welcomed the clarity provided by the Kerala High Court in this judgment, which is expected to have a significant impact on civil litigation procedures and jurisdictional matters.

Date of Decision: 2 November 2023

C.K. SURENDRAN VS KUNHIMOOSA   

Similar News