Order XII CPC deals with admission of the case, admission of the documents and judgment on admissions.

Rule 1 thereof provides that a party to a suit may give notice by his pleading or otherwise in writing that he admits the truth of the whole or any party of the case of any other party.

Rule 2 deals with notice to admit documents – it provides that each party may call upon the other party to admit within 7 days from the date of service of the notice of any document saving all such exceptions.

Rule 2A provides that a document could be deemed to have been admitted if not denied after service of notice to admit documents.

Admission is the best piece of substantive evidence that an opposite party can rely upon, though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. Admission may in certain circumstances, operate as an estoppel. The question which is needed to be considered is what weight is to be attached to an admission and for that purpose it is necessary to find out as to whether it is clear, unambiguous and a relevant piece of evidence, and further it is proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. It would be appropriate that an opportunity is given to the person under cross-examination to tender his explanation and clear the point on the question of admission[1].

In Nagubai Ammal & Ors. v. B.Shama Rao & Ors., AIR 1956 SC 593, Supreme Court held that admission made by a party is admissible and best evidence, unless it is proved that it had been made under a mistaken belief. While deciding the said case reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Slatterie v. Pooley, (1840) 6 M & W 664, wherein it had been observed

“What a party himself admits to be true, may reasonably be presumed to be so.”

In L.I.C of India & Anr v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491, Supreme Court held that “failure to prove the defence does not amount to an admission, nor does it reverse or discharge the burden of proof of the plaintiff.”

In view of the above, the law on the admissions can be summarised to the effect that admission made by a party though not conclusive, is a decisive factor in a case unless the other party successfully withdraws the same or proves it to be erroneous. Even if the admission is not conclusive it may operate as an estoppel. Law requires that an opportunity be given to the person who has made admission under cross-examination to tender his explanation and clarify the point on the question of admission. Failure of a party to prove its defence does not amount to admission, nor it can reverse or discharge the burden of proof of the plaintiff.

Reference

Union of India v. Ibrahimuddin (2012)

[1] Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi & Ors., AIR 1960 SC 100; Basant Singh v. Janki Singh & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 341; Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil, AIR 1977 SC 1712; Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 230; United Indian Insurance Co Ltd. v. Samir Chandra Choudhary., (2005) 5 SCC 784; Charanjit lal Mehra & Ors v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 2765; and Udham Singh v. Ram Singh & Anr., (2007) 15 SCC 529