The Supreme Court in Sheikh Abedin v. Iqbal Ahmed & Anr. (SLP (C) No. 19868 of 2022, decided on 7 May 2026  affirmed the principle that clear and unequivocal admissions can form the basis of a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC, 1908”). The judgment underscores the utility of this provision in securing speedy justice and clarifies the scope of admissions made outside pleadings, including in criminal proceedings.

Background of the Dispute
The Respondents (original Plaintiffs) claimed ownership in respect of Plot No. P-229, Khasra No. 431/260, Joga Bai Extension, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, Batla House, New Delhi, measuring 260 square yards (“Suit Property”) through documents executed in November 2000 including a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Affidavit dated 27.11.2000 by Shri Dilbar Husain Malik in favour of the Plaintiff for a consideration of ₹80,000.

The Petitioner, Sheikh Abedin, was appointed as caretaker/chowkidar of the Suit Property. When he was asked to vacate the Suit Property, he refused to vacate the same. Consequently, The Respondents (original Plaintiffs) instituted Civil Suit No. 1162/2019 before the Senior Civil Judge, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi, seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the Suit Property. The Plaintiffs sought declaration that documents including General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt and will dated 09.07.1996 in respect of the suit property executed by Shri Dilawar Husain Mallik in favour of Shaikh Abidin are invalid and prayed for injunction against construction or third-party interest with respect to the Suit Property.

Application Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, 1908
During the proceedings, the Plaintiffs filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, 1908 in the said suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs directing the Defendant to remove all his belongings and hand over possession of the Suit Property. The Ld. Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs on 16 October 2020. It is pertinent to note that the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs’ for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, pursuant to the admissions contained in the complaint dated 28.07.2009, on the basis of which FIR No. 178/2009 was registered. During trial, the said complaint was exhibited in the testimony of the Defendant as Ex. PW‑3/A. In this complaint, the Defendant acknowledged the Plaintiffs’ ownership of the suit property and further admitted his own status therein as a caretaker/chowkidar.

Aggrieved by the order dated 16 October 2020, the Petitioner appealed before the District Court by way of Regular Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2020. However, the First Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 29 April 2022 dismissed the First Appeal. The First Appellate Court observed that the Plaintiffs’ suit for possession was rightly decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, based on the Defendant’s admissions in the complaint dated 28.07.2009 (FIR No. 178/2009), exhibited as Ex. PW‑3/A. In that complaint, the Defendant expressly acknowledged the Plaintiffs’ ownership of the suit property and admitted his own status as caretaker/chowkidar.

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 29 April 2022 passed by the First Appellate Court, the Petitioner approached the High Court of Delhi by way of Regular Second Appeal No. 92 of 2022. The High Court upheld the decree dated 16 October 2020 by the Ld. Trial Court.

Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court examined the issue as to whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit on the strength of admissions made in criminal proceedings. The Court examined Rule 6(1) of Order XII CPC, which provides:

“Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit… make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.”

The Supreme Court reiterated that admissions need not be confined to pleadings as they may be oral or written, and no particular form is required. Further, the purpose of Order 12 Rule 6 is to enable speedy justice to the extent of admitted claims. The Court relied on Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India (2000) 7 SCC 120 and emphasized that the provision should not be narrowly construed, as its object is to allow decrees based on clear admissions.

The Court noted that three courts had concurrently found the Petitioner’s admissions to be clear and unequivocal. It declined to interfere, holding that the trial court was justified in passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP in Sheikh Abedin v. Iqbal Ahmed underscores the importance of admissions in civil litigation. By affirming that admissions made in criminal proceedings can form the basis of a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Court has strengthened the mechanism for speedy justice.

By - C. George Thomas