◄

CHAPTER 5
ADMISSION, PRODUCTION, IMPOUNDING
AND RETURN OF DOCUMENTS
(ORDERS XII TO XIII)

SYNOPSIS
(1) Notice of admission
(2) Notice to admit documents
(3) Notice to admit facts
(4) Judgme nt on admission
(5) Docum ent to be Impounded
(6) Return of admitte d documents

(1) Notice of admis sion

Either party to a suit may give notice, in writing that he admits the
truth of the whole or any part of the case of any other party. It is dear from
the Rule that any party through his pleading can give notice to other in
writing whethe r he admits the truth or any part of the case of the other
party. This is the first process after instituting a case whereb y it is obligatory
on the opposit e party to either admit the case or refute it by putting up his
own contention regarding the matter of controversy.

(2) Notice to admit documents

Rules 2, 2(A) and 3 of Order XII deal with notice to admit documents.
Every docume nt which a party is called upon to admit- if not denied
specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitte d in the
pleadin g of that party or in his reply to notice to admit documents, is to be
deemed to be admitte d except as against a person under disability. The
provision is that the admission should be specific or it may be by necessary
implication if the same has not been denied specifically. Even if a docume nt
has not been admitte d but at the same time it has not been clearly denied,
the presum ption would be that the document in question has been admitte d
by the opposit e party. Therefore, denial should be in unequivocal terms so
that the inference may not be drawn that the document in question has, by
implication, been admitted.
Rule 2 stifrulates that either party may call upon the other party to
admit, within [seven] days from the date of service of the notice cl_!lY,
docume nt.
Where a party unreasonably neglects or refuses to admit docume nt after
the service on him of the notice to admit documents, the Court may direct
him to pay costs to the other party by way of compensation. The notice to

1. For I.be word •fifteen" the word "seven" substituted by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1999, (Act
46 of 1999), Section 22.
( 170)
p
CUMENTS 171
)()lJNDfNG AND RETURN OF DO
ADMISSION, PRODUCTION, IP.f

be in the prescribed 1o , rm.

admit do cu m en ts sh ou ld ·
f re fu sa l or ne gle ct tO •ad nu· t an y do cu m en t after notice, costs
In case·d b th
o e result
l be rty so ne gle cti ng or refusing irrespective of th
shal ~ru Y e pa
_d ire cts oth erw w. ?. Th e Co ur t may, however, in
ur t
?f ~e su~t unless tht~er Co re co rd in g rea so ns , req uir e an y do cu m en t so ad m itt
ed
its discretion an d af an by such admission.
be pr ov ed oth erw IS e th wn
to
co rd ad m iss Jo n. -R ul e 3 (a) of Or de r XI I lays do
Powe_r of C o~ to re to ad m it document ha s been gi ve
n un de r
g th at no no tic e its ow n
that no tw ith sta nd in
11

ma y, at an y sta ge of th e proceedings before it, of se,

Rule 2, th e Co ur t
to ad m it an y do cu me nt, an d shall in su ch a ca
rty
motion ,d ll up on an y pa ts or ref us es or neglects to ad m it su ch
ad mi
record wh et he r th e pa rty
document." at if no notice to ad m it do cu m en
ts
we rs th e Co ur t th
The ab ov e ru le em po n wi ll at an y stage of th e pr oc
ee di ng
ur t m ay of its ow
has been gi ve n th e Co ur t ha s to
to ad m it an y do cu me nt. In such a case th e Co
call up on an y pa rty its or ref us es or ev en neglects to ad m it su ch
ad m
record wh et he r th e pa rty nt ar y ev ide nc e is an essential an d va lu ab
le
cu me
document. Since th e do se, ev ery effort ha s to be m ad e
th at th e
ng th e ca
evidence in establis hi
od uc ed in th e Co ur t sh ou ld eit he r be ad m itt ed
en pr
documents wh ic h ha ve be ua tio n so wa rra nt s, m ay call up on an y pa rty
th e sit
or denied. Th e Co ur ts, if it m ay th ink fit for ad m in ist ra tio n of
justice.
t wh ich
to pr od uc e a do cu m en ld be in ce rtain terms an d th er e sh ou
ld be no
m en ts sh ou
Admission of do cu
neglect in th is regard.

(3) Notice to admit facts fac ts. An y pa rty may, by notice in

e to ad mi t
Rule 4 de al s wi th notic da ys be fo re th e da y fixed fo r th e he ar in
g,
er th an 9
writing, at an y tim e no t lat fo r the pu rp os es of th e su it only, an y sp
ecific
to ad m it t to ad m it
call on an y ot he r pa rty no tic e. In case of refusal or neglec
d in su ch
fact or facts m en tio ne
se rv ice of su ch no tic e, or wi th in su ch fu rth er
after
the sa m e wi th in six da ys th e Co ur t, co sts of pr ov in g su ch fact or fac
ts
by
time, as m ay be all ow ed so ne gle cti ng _ or 1; tu sin g wh at ev er th e re
su lt
e pa rty
have to _be pa id by th
m ay be un les s th e Co ur t otherwise directs. ua nc e
of the su it
e pr ov isi on sa ys th at an y admission m ad e in pu rs
The Proviso to th be m ad e on ly for th e pu rp
os es of th e
be de em ed to
of su ch notice is to
ad mi s.s ion to be us ed ag ain st th e pa rty on an y
an
particular su it an d no t as an y pe rso n ot he r than th e pa rty gi vi ng
th e
ur of
other occasion or in favo
ct
notice.
s om itt ed by C. P.C . (A mendment) Act, 1999, (A
Th e se co nd pr ov iso wa
46 of 1999), Section 22.
) Judgm ent on adm issi on [Order 12, Rule 6] th e
(4 pr ov isi on re ga rd in g ju dg m en t on
I lay s do wn
6 of Or de r XI
Rule e ju dg m en t
to pr on ou nc
iss io ns . Th e Co ur ts ha ve been em po we re d ati on of
basis of ad m
e by th e pa rty wi th ou t wa iti ng for th e de ter m in
up on ad m iss io ns m ad e pa ~e s. ~ e Ru le in ten ds to pr ov id e fo r
n th
any ot he r qu es tio ns be tw ee an d provide relief. Rule 6 re ad s as un de r :
se
sp ee dy di sp os al of th e ca
 172 C01E OF CML POOCEOURE. 1908

"(1) Where admission of facts have been made either in th

pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may a~
any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its
own motion and without waiting for the determinat ion 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."
Thus, it is clear from the above-men tioned provision that if the
admissions of fact have been made in the pleading or otherwise, the Court
may pronounce its judgment without going into the other requiremen ts of the
case, such as framing of issues, questions involved etc. and the Court has
powers to pronounce the judgment only on the basis of admissions if the
Court is satisfied that the admissions are certain and clear and do not require
further investigatio n. Therefore, 'admission' is something that constitutes an
important component in deciding a case which prevents a lot of exercise
which is required to be gone through if the admission is not forthcoming.
' ~ i o n ' not only results in an early disposal of the case but also saves
expenses and time of the litigants.
When a statement is made by a party and such statement is brought
before the Court by an application filed under Order XII, Rule 6 showing
admission of liability and the other side had sufficient opportunity to explain
the admission and if such explanation is not accepted by the Court it may
give judgment at admission stage. 1
The expression "admission of facts either in pleading or otherwise
whether orally or in writing", gives a wide sweep to Order 12, Rules 6 and
1.2 It is essentially a question of fact and decision would depend upon facts
of the case. It cannot be decided on the basis of a judicial precedent. On the
facts of the case, the court found that the tenant did not admit termination
of the tenancy. He disputed this fact in his pleadings. The matter could not
3
be decided on the basis of an a~ion.
A judgment and decree were based on an a~ion. The decree was in
terms of the undertakin g given before the court. The question was whether
other issues remained to be settled. An attempt was made to withdraw the
undertaking. It was held that the decree passed in terms of the undertakin g
c:fjd not put a quietus to the ~ue of mesne profits and that issue still remained
to be decided.'
A petition in connection with a Muslim Marriage was disposed of on
an admission. 1be ground of dissolution was reconversio n by the wife to her
Original Hindu faith which she admitted. The husband's only plea was
demurrer (objection) as to the fact of reconversion. Rishu Arora was her
1. Uttam Singh Dugal v. Unikd Bank of India, A.LR. 2000 S.C. 2740.
2. Karam Kapali v. Lal Chand Publk Chorilabk Tnut, AIR 2010 SC 2007, the judgment was
00
the basis of admission. The club wu DOI able IO get any relief because it made inconsistent
pleas about lease ~ and abo adopted dilatory tactics for prolonging litigation. Not cntitJed
co relief Wider Article 136.
3. Jenan Diesels & Electricals Lid. V. Jasbir Singh Chadha, AIR 2010 SC 1890.
4. Delhi Financial Corpn. v. V.P. Purl, (2006) 13 SCC 269.
 ADMISSION, PRODUCTION ' fUDn a ..,DING 173
....- """ ~D RETURN OF OOClMENT$

original Hin du nam e. Thehel decree of div

be pro per. It wa s alsQ d th o~e un~ er Order 12, Rule 6 wa s hel d
:~e hus ban d's pre rog atii e of a t~~~~ dISS
recovery of an am oun t, the ong
Olution of marriage did not affect
· aJ agreement between the
· m
In a sui t for
.th
. · rt nor proved. But the def end ant
parti_es w~s net er pro duc ed before the couand also the fact tha t he was to
in lus wn tten stat em ent admitted the
loan
bac k the am oun t wit h inte rest . He also repeated his adm issi on in his
pay
ad.mission was hel d to be
eVIdence. A dec ree pas sed on the basis of such
2
proper.
not sup por t an admis.5ion in
The pro visi ons of OJ:der . 12, Rule 6, do
compulsorily to be registered. In a
~p ect of ~ ?o ~e nt which IS requiredleas e agreement was not registered.
swt for eVIc_hon, it was fou nd that the
cou rt sai d tha t the wan t of reg istr atio n could not be ma de up by pay me nt
The
not entitled to say tha t because
of stam p dut y an? :penalty. The tenant was by the lessor, his sui t sho uld be
there was an adrrussmn about the agreement
disnus. sed3 .
Production of Do cum ent s
tha t the documents, wh ich hav e
It is one of the foremost requirements
parties, mu st be pro duc ed alo ng wit h
the material bea ring on the case of the
mu st be pro duc ed in the · cou rt
pla int/ wri tten statement. These documents
uments are considered mo st valuable
before the sett lem ent of issues. These doc
and are use d in pro vin g the cas:e of a
party.
ment) Act, 1999 the following
By the Co de of Civil Procedure (Amend
2 of Ord er XIII :
rule has bee n sub stit ute d for Rules 1 and
or before the
"1. Original documents to be produced at
their ple ade r shall
~ettlement of issues :--(1) The parties or
of issues, all the
pro du ce on or before the settlement
the copies thereof
do cum ent ary evidence in original where
itten statement.
hav e bee n filed along wi th plaint or wr
s so pro duc ed :
(2) The cou rt shall receive the document
an accurate list
Pro vid ed tha t they are accompanied by
gh Co urt directs.
thereof pre par ed in such form as the Hi
to do cu me nts -
(3) No thi ng in sub-rule (1) shall app ly
of the
(a) pro du ced for the cross-examination
witnesses of the other party; or
(b) han ded -ov er to a witness merely
to refresh his
. .4
memory. ntakif v. Qutab Oa ~, hel d ~t
The Del hi Hig h Co urt in Babar Ahmed Ma ents or accounts m que stio n
um
. ce no reason was g1·ven as to wh y doc. .
Sm p
rod ced
u , the
nuss1oner wer e not
which we re init iate d by the local Com
-. AIR "014 Del. 130Al D.B.
- ------- u Aror a, · : · K- s· I R. 2014 Manipur 37 .
1. Munavvar-UI-Islam v.hR,shla . hram Pr1y o umar mg '• . 2013.
Kar 122.
2 Mandala. A.I.R
• Tlwkchom Suren Sing v. ,s raya Maha
3. Archana Associates v. AgamaJh
4. A.I.R. 2004 NOC 40 (Delhi).
 ◄

174 CODE OF CML PROCEDURE, 1908

applic ation seekin g permi ssion for produ ction of docum ents was
rightly
dis~.
Wher e the delay in filing a docum ent was not prope rly expla ined, the
order rejecting applic ation to file the docum ent at belate d stage was
not to
be interf ered with.1 ·

(5) Docu ment s to be impo unde d

Rule 8 lays down· that the Court may order any docum ent to be
impou nded. The Court may for sufficient cause direct any docum ent or
book
produ ced before it in any suit to be impou nded and kept in custo dy
of an
officer of the Court durin g such period and subject to such condi tions
as the
Court thinks fit. This provis ion is used by the Court in cases of forger
y and
cheati ng where broad and detailed investigations are requir ed and also
to
ensur e that such docum ents are not tampe red with. To ensur e safe custod
y
and invest igapo n of such documents, as the Court may think fit, the
court
can order thJm to be impou nded.
Impounding of document already exhibited and admitted by Court
When the docum ent in questi on was exhibited and admit ted by the
Court , order impou nding such docum ent on review applic ation for assess
ment
of stamp duty witho ut recording reasons, was improper.2

(6) Return of admitted documents

Any party which submi ts the docum ents in the Court may call back the
docum ents so produ ced unless the docum ent is impou nded under Rule
8.
The party is entitle d to receive back the docum ent as and when required
after
dispo sal of the case. Rule. 9 of Order XIII provid es that (1) any person
wheth er a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any docum
ent
produ ced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless
the
docum ent is impou nded under Rule 8, be entitle d to receive back the same
:
(a) where the suit is one in which an appea l is not allowed, when
the suit has been dispos ed of; and
(b) where the suit is one in which an appea l is allowed, when the
Court is satisfied that the time for preferring an appea l has elapsed and
that, no appea l has been preferred or, if an appea l has been preferred,
when the appea l has been dispos ed of :
A docum ent may, however, be return ed at any time earlier than that
prescr ibed by this rule if the person applyi ng therefor (a) delivers to
the
prope r officer for being substi tuted for the original, (i) in case of a party
to
this suit, a certified copy, and (ii) in case of any other person , an ordina
ry
copy which has been examined, compa red and certified in the mann
er
menti oned in sub-ru le (2) of Rule 17 of Order VII and (b) under takes
to
produ ce the origin al, if required to do so.
No docum ent is to be return ed by force of the decree which has become
wholl y void or useles s.
(2) On the return of,. a docwn ent admit ted in evidence, a receipt has to
I. Natabar Da/ai v. Nami Kalia, A.I.R. 2004 NOC 273 (Ori.).
2. Sunkari Srujana v. Chik.J<.a/a Bhavani Shankar. A.I.R. 2004 NOC 208
(A.P.).
 ADMISSION, PRODUCTION, IMPOUNDING AND RETU
RN OF DOCUMENTS 175
be given by th e person receiving it.
Application for returning of document&
Since do cu m en ts so ug ht to be re tu rn
ed were certified copies of the
original, th e sa m~ co ul ~ no t ~ re tu rn
ed because only original docum.ent
could be re tu rn ed after its certified copies
are delivered to th e pr op e·r officer
for being su bs tit ut ed for th e original. 1