(ORDER XII RULE 6) JUDGEMENT ON ADMISSION ON THE BASIS OF ORAL ADMISSION MUST BE CLEAR, CATEGORICAL, UNAMBIGUOUS & UNCONDITIONAL.

 
Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC stipulates that the court may at any stage of the proceeding can pass a Judgement on the basis of the Admission made by the party in the pleadings or otherwise orally or in writing.
Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC reads thus: Judgment on admissions.—
(1) 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, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. 
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
Order XII Rule 6 is an enabling provision that provides complete discretion to the court to pass a judgement on admission on the basis of admission in the pleadings. The court may, in an appropriate case, give a judgment at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings on admission by a party but if the case involves questions which cannot conveniently be disposed off at a motion stage, the court may not give judgment at that stage.

JUDGEMENT ON ADMISSION ON THE BASIS OF ORAL ADMISSION.
With respect to oral admission, judicial precedent time and again have opined that judgement on admission can be based on a statement made by the parties de hors the pleadings and such admissions could be either expressed or constructive. It has been held that the court while passing a judgement on the basis of oral admission must scrutinise the admission with great caution. 

ORAL ADMISSION MUST BE CLEAR AND UNAMBUGIOUS.

In Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India [(2000) 7 SCC 120] The SC held that “The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. The Court should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed."
In Himani Alloys Ltd vs Tata Steel Ltd (2011)15 SCC 273, The SC opined that "the admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest the claim."
A similar view was taken by the Supreme court in  Rajiv Ghosh vs Satya Naryan Jaiswal 2025 INSC 467 wherein it held that the use of the expression ‘otherwise’ in the aforesaid context came to be interpreted by the High Court. Considering the expression the Court interpreted the said word by stating that it permits the Court to pass judgment on the basis of the statement made by the parties not only on the pleadings but also dehors the pleadings i.e. either in any document or even in the statement recorded in the Court. If one of the parties' statement is recorded under O. 10, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is also a statement which elucidates matters in controversy. Any admission in such statement is relevant not only for the purpose of finding out the real dispute between the parties but also to ascertain as to whether or not any dispute or controversy exists between the parties. Admission if any is made by a party in the statement recorded, would be conclusive against him and the Court can proceed to pass judgment on the basis of the admission made therein.

Can an admission taken by an Advocate without proper instruction from the client lead to a decree under order 12 Rule 6?
It is a settled legal principle that the client should not suffer for the fault committed by its Advocate. CJI Bobde speaking for himself and two other judges in Himalayan Co-operative Group Housing vs Balwant Singh (2015) 7 SCC 313) held that "it is the solemn duty of an advocate not to transgress the authority conferred him by the client. It is always better to seek appropriate instructions from the client or his authorized agent before making any concession which may, directly or remotely, affect the rightful legal right of the client. Generally, admissions of fact made by a counsel is binding upon their principals as long as they are unequivocal; where, however, doubt exists as to a purported admission, the Court should be wary to accept such admissions until and unless the counsel or the advocate is authorised by his principal to make such admissions. Furthermore, a client is not bound by a statement or admission which he or his lawyer was not authorised to make. Lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. We hasten to add neither the client nor the Court is bound by the lawyer’s statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client’s instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client. While in some cases, lawyers can make decisions without consulting client. While in others, the decision is reserved for the client. It is often said that the lawyer can make decisions as to tactics without consulting the client, while the client has a right to make decisions that can affect his rights. We do not intend to prolong this discussion. 

Thus, a decree on judgement on admission can be passed on oral admission but the admission should be clear, categorical, unambugious, unconditional and consented, without any inferences and should be sound enough to satisfy the conscience of the court.