Supreme Court: As per Order XII Rule 6 CPC, Admission Made In Criminal Case Can Be Used In Civil Proceedings

While dismissing the Second Appeal, the High Court took notice of the admissions made by the petitioner in the criminal proceedings and observed as under:-

"26. In the present case, learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the fact that, in the complaint dated 29thJuly 2009 lodged by him at PS.Jamia Nagar, which resulted in the registration of FIR178/2009. The appellant had indeed acknowledged the suit property to be owned by Respondent 1 and that he had been inducted into the suit property by Respondent 2 as caretaker. This admission finds place in the complaint as well as in the FIR. During the course of regarding of evidence in the criminal proceedings, following the FIR, the appellant, as PW-3, specifically admitted the fact of filing the aforesaid complaint by him at police station Jamia Nagar on 27thAugust 2009, resulting in the complaint being exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A. It is not the case of the appellant that, during the course of recording of the said evidence, there was any denial of the contents of the said FIR.

12. The entire debate revolves around the question whether the courts-below were justified to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs on the strength of the admission made by the petitioner in the course of the criminal proceedings and whether the trial court was justified to pass the final decree based on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

17. On the aspect of admission on the part of the petitioner, three courts have assigned cogent reasons. We need not disturb the concurrent findings recorded by the three courts-below in this regard.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal C No. 19868/2022

Date of Order: 07.05.2026

Sheikh Abedin Vs. Iqbal Ahmed and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SCOR/32097/2026

Print Page

Why the court should take Admission and denial of documents in civil proceeding?

 Admission and denial of documents under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, is a critical procedural stage used to narrow the scope of a trial, expedite proceedings, and reduce costs. It forces parties to confirm the existence, execution, or authenticity of documents, limiting evidence only to disputed items. 

Key Reasons for Admission/Denial of Documents:

• Narrowing Issues: It defines exactly which documents are disputed, allowing the court to focus only on those.

Print Page

Whether principle of forum non conveniens is applicable to civil proceeding filed in India?

During the course of arguments, Mr. Sai Deepak also invokes the principle of forum non conveniens. In his submission, as the defendant, i.e. his client, was based in Hyderabad, and had filed OS 867/2019 prior, in point of time, to the filing of the present suit by the plaintiffs, applying the principle of forum non conveniens, the present suit ought to have been filed in Hyderabad.

43. This submission, of Mr. Sai Deepak, merits rejection, straightaway, as it stands covered by the decision, of a Division Bench of this Court, authored by Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. (as he then was) in Horlicks Ltd. v. Heinz India (Pvt.) Ltd. MANU/DE/2721/2009 : (2009) 164 DLT 539 (DB) which, after an incisive study of the evaluation of the forum non conveniens doctrine, with all its inflexions, held, authoritatively, that the principle had no application to domestic suits. Paras 78, 86, 88 and 90 of the decision merit reproduction, in extenso, thus:

"78. The aforesaid exposition thus shows that principles while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot ipso facto be applied to a civil proceeding governed by the said Code. Not only that, the principle of forum non conveniens emerged as a principle of admiralty law applicable primarily to foreign forums. It finds no place in a domestic forum in India. The plaintiff is always the dominus litis and so long as the Court has jurisdiction to try a suit, a party cannot be non-suited. A suit has to be governed by the provisions of the said Code. In this context, we may refer to the observations made in Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttarakhand, MANU/SC/3415/2008 : (2008) 10 SCC 97, where the Supreme Court held that since Section 9 of the said Code provides that a civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting the suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred, the civil Courts have inherent jurisdiction unless a part of that jurisdiction is carved out. Thus, the law confers on every person an inherent right to bring a suit of civil nature of one's choice, at one's peril, howsoever frivolous the claim may be, unless it is barred by a statute. It was further observed that a plaint can only be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the said Code and similarly a plea of bar to jurisdiction of a civil Court can be examined.

90. We thus hold that the principle of forum non conveniens has no application to domestic forums in India which are governed by the said Code."

(Emphasis supplied).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

I.As. 2594, 2595, 2596, 4274 and 5209/2020 in CS (COMM.) 611/2019

Decided On: 15.07.2020

FMC Corporation  Vs. NATCO Pharma Limited

Print Page

Whether court can direct police investigation during course of civil proceeding?

These judgments are a complete answer to the arguments of Mr. Kadam, who would rely upon section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the language of section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Mr. Kadam would argue that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not appealable because it is not specifically enumerated in Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It cannot be held to be appealable by relying on clause (15) of the Letters Patent, which is expressly overridden by sub-section (2) of section 13 was his submission. We are unable to accept it and for more than one reason. The learned Single Judge in this case was seized of an application for interim relief/injunction made in a IP(L) Commercial Suit. He was, therefore, seized of a commercial dispute. He was aware that in a commercial dispute as was brought before him, there was a request made to grant interim reliefs or interlocutory injunction or the prayer for appointment of court receiver. He was, therefore, obliged to consider that request within the four corners of the law. The four corners of the law included the Code of Civil Procedure and Order XXXIX and XL Rules 1 and 2 thereof. The other applicable provision was section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the request to grant reliefs as claimed by the plaintiff could have been considered on the touchstone of these provisions and the legal principles interpreting the powers in relation thereto. The learned Single Judge assumed that during the course of exercise of such powers as are enumerated in Order XXXIX and XL, he can also summon the police officials, direct them to carry out an investigation and submit report of that to him, particularly on the aspect as to whether the parties brought before him are prima facie guilty of any offence punishable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned Single Judge then went ahead and found that given the nature of the allegations, it is necessary to recommend constitution of a SIT and he observed accordingly. Relying upon his observations and the remarks during the course of consideration of the application for interim reliefs, the police machinery stepped in, it constituted such SIT and submitted its report from time to time to the learned Single Judge who considered these reports and made further observations which had a definite bearing on the rights of those brought before him. These rights pertain to their life and liberty. The learned Single Judge, unmindful of the consequences of such recommendations/opinions/observations has gone ahead and termed their acts as punishable offences. In view of these sweeping directions and observations, there is enough material to conclude that the learned Single Judge took over the powers of a competent criminal court in making such orders. That is how we have proceeded by applying the aforementioned legal principles and to the effect that if the ad-interim or interim orders passed in exercise of the powers conferred vide Order XXXIX and XL of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 are appealable orders, then, issuing directions beyond the same would definitely permit us to interfere with the impugned orders and to prevent serious miscarriage of justice. That is how we have entertained these appeals.

74. We have not set down any wide or broad legal proposition and which can be applied to every case. We clarify that it is only in the above facts and circumstances that these legal principles would apply. They cannot be applied to all cases irrespective of the peculiar facts and circumstances therein. Ultimately the application of the above legal principles and also those enumerated in para 34 of our order in the case of Shailendra Bhadauria (supra) would arise in the facts and circumstances of each case. No general rule has been laid down by us.

75. While we interfere with the Impugned orders and to the extent that the learned Judge could not have called upon the police officials to remain present before him nor could he summon all the parties to the suit personally as if they were accused before a criminal court, we do not intend to confer any benefit to those who are involved in criminal acts. If there is an element of criminality in their acts, then, that has to be taken care of by recourse to criminal law. No amount of interference by us in the impugned orders and directions would enable those proceeded against to contend and urge that the investigations have been carried out by a police official not at all competent to carry them out. They may raise issue and pleas about the legality and validity of the investigation, but we express no opinion on such contentions. All that we direct is that the report of all these investigations be placed before the competent criminal court. It is for the competent criminal court to express any opinion on the legality and validity of such investigations and the merits thereof when they are placed before it. Since all the reports of the investigations carried out till date are on the file of the civil suits in this court, we direct that they shall be forthwith transferred to the file of the competent criminal court. It is for the competent criminal court to then decide as to whether a prima facie case has been made out against the persons named therein and can a charge be framed against them. Once these reports are placed before the competent criminal court, it is its duty and function in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to take an appropriate decision. That decision will be taken strictly in accordance with law. While taking that decision, the criminal court shall not be influenced by any opinion or expression of any opinion in the orders under challenge. Equally, the competent criminal court shall not be influenced by the fact that we have interfered with the orders under challenge and to the extent indicated above. We clarify that once the investigations have been carried out, it is not for us to unsettle them nor do we intend to scuttle them. If they are in process, let them be carried out and taken to their logical conclusion. The reports of such investigation be placed before the competent criminal court and it is for that court to then take a call and strictly in accordance with law. Presently, we do not give any declaration and as desired by the appellants, particularly to the effect that the investigations have been carried out without jurisdiction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Commercial Appeal (L) No. 434 of 2018, Notice of Motion (L) No. 1002 of 2018, Commercial Appeal (L) No. 428 of 2018 and Notice of Motion (L) No. 996 of 2018

Decided On: 17.10.2018

Trident Steel and Engineering Co. Vs.  Vallourec and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Dharmadhikari and B.P. Colabawalla, JJ.

Citation:2018 SCC OnLine Bom 4060

Print Page

Whether charge of adultery in Divorce proceeding is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

To prove the charge of adultery the standard of proof required in a criminal case cannot be applied for the proceedings under the Act. Person alleging adultery is only required to prove the allegations by preponderance of probabilities and the degree of probability depends on the gravity of the offence. It is well established that application for divorce is a civil proceeding and analogies of criminal law cannot be applied to it. It is equally true that the petition for divorce on the charges of adultery cannot be allowed merely on suspicion and doubts expressed by the party approaching the Court. The view of proving the matrimonial offence beyond reasonable doubt has undergone a sea change and in the modified form the petitioner is only required to prove his case by preponderance of probabilities and the degree of probability depends upon the gravity of the offence. A Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Lalit Lazarus v. Smt. Lavina Lazarus, MANU/MP/0016/1979 : AIR1979MP70 considered this aspect of the matter in detail and held that (Paras 6 and 7)

'The next question to be considered is whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of adultery. Previously the view was that the matrimonial offences have to be proved by petitioner beyond reasonable doubt but recently the view has been modified and it has been held that petitioner is only required to prove his case by preponderance of probabilities and the degree of probability depends on the gravity of the offence Rayden on Divorce in Vol. 1 at page 193 has observed "But a suit for divorce is a civil and not a criminal proceeding and the analogies and precedents of criminal law have no authority in the Courts administering divorces; they are civil Tribunals. It is wrong, therefore, to apply an analogy of criminal law and to say that adultery must be proved with the same strictness as is required in a criminal case. As far as the standard of proof is concerned, adultery, like any other fact on which irretrievable breakdown of marriage is concerned, may be proved by a preponderance of probability, and although it has been said that in proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear, and that even in these days there is a stigma in adultery, nevertheless views on adultery have changed and it no longer generally entails the serious social consequences that in some former limes resulted from its discovery."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

O.S.A. No. 11 of 1996

Decided On: 26.06.1997

 M.R.G.L.J. Vailsher Vs. Smt. Ramola Vailshery and others

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.P. Sethi, C.J. and Hari Nath Tilhari, JJ.

 Citation : AIR 1997 Kant 341

Print Page

Whether husband is competent witness for wife in civil proceeding?

Learned Counsel submitted that the second defendant has not entered the box and, therefore, she cannot claim that she will be a bonafide purchaser for value. Relying on the decision reported in Arunachala Thevar v, Govindarajan Chettiar (1977) 2 M.L.J. 431, learned Counsel submitted that to claim the benefit of a bona fide purchaser, only rebuttal evidence is required, and once the second defendant enters the box and asserts that she is not aware of the agreement, that will be sufficient for the purpose of the case. Since she has failed to depose before court, it is contended that the sale in her favour is only after notice of the agreement. The said contention of the learned Counsel also cannot be accepted.

29. When P.W.1 was examined, he said that with regard to Ex.A-1 agreement, he has spoken to both the second defendant and her husband. If that be so, the husband is a competent witness to speak about the details. In this case, the second defendant's husband has been examined as D.W.1, and he has stated that he is not aware of any such agreement. Further, under Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, the husband is a competent witness for the wife in civil proceedings. The question of bona fide purchaser for value also will arise only in case where there is a valid agreement. Once I hold that there was no agreement at all when Ex.A-2 was executed, there is no scope for holding that the second defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value with notice of the agreement. According to me, such a contention is unnecessary for the purpose of this case.

Madras High Court

K. Saroja vs Valliammal And Ors. on 8 March, 1996

Equivalent citations: (1996) 2 MLJ 199

Coram:S.S. Subramani, J.

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court Judgment on appreciation of evidence in civil/matrimonial proceeding

The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, Section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A. prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he links that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note : "the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue" Per Dixon, J. in Wright v. Wright (1948) 77 C.L.R. 191 at p. 210; or as said by Lord Denning, "the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear" Blyth v. Blyth [1966] 1 A.E.R. 534 at 536. But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged.

Supreme Court of India

Dr. N.G. Dastane vs Mrs. S. Dastane on 19 March, 1975

Equivalent citations: AIR 1975 SC 1534, (1975) 2 SCC 326, 1975 3 SCR 967

Bench: N Untwalia, P Goswami, Y Chandrachud

Print Page

Whether case diary can be called in civil proceeding or proceeding under article 32 and article 226 of constitution?

The bar under
Sub-section (2) to Section 172 Cr.P.C. is a limited bar and does not
apply to civil proceedings or proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of
the Constitution of India, particularly when the party calling for thecase diary is neither an accused nor an agent. Rejecting the contention
that the principle behind Section 172 Cr.P.C. is to exclude the report of
investigation altogether in other proceedings for it would jeopardize 
secrecy of investigation, the Supreme Court affirmatively observed that
for truth to emerge, all relevant facts to the inquiry must be brought
before the court and nothing should be shut out, otherwise the opinion
formed may be distorted or incomplete, which might result in injustice. A
judgment should not be founded on partial or speculative presentation of
facts as it would affect the integrity of the judicial system and public
confidence. In exceptional cases, where weighty and compelling
competing interest requires withholding or secrecy, legislature has
provided for exceptions but the exclusion should be strictly interpreted

and not expansively construed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 485/2012
 Date of Decision:11th February, 2016
LAXMI @ LACCHO AND ANOTHER 
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI 
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA

Print Page

Whether charge of Fraud made in civil proceedings must be established beyond reasonable doubt?

Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act defines 'fraud'. It is a comprehensive term and embraces large number of delinquencies. A person who alleges fraud must give particulars thereof in his pleadings. It must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. Lord Atkin in A. L. N. Narayanan Chettiyar v. Official Assignee (AIR 1941 P.C. 93) observed :

"Fraud like any other charge of a criminal offence whether made in civil or criminal proceedings must be established beyond reasonable doubt. A finding as to fraud cannot be based on suspicion and conjecture."

Kerala High Court

Unique Alliance Industries, Goa vs Anupama Agencies, Trichur And ... on 11 March, 1994

Equivalent citations: AIR 1995 Ker 52, 1998 91 CompCas 254 Ker

Bench: V Kalliath, P Mohammed

Print Page

Whether principle that "one who hears must decide the case" is applicable to hearing of suit?

 In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Ors.1, this Court stated the principle that one who hears must decide the case. The Court said :

"The second objection is that while the Act and the Rules framed thereunder impose a duty on the State Government to give a personal hearing, the procedure prescribed by the Rules impose a duty on the Secretary to hear and the Chief Minister to decide. This divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing. Such a procedure defeats the object of personal hearing. Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the 17

demeanour of the witnesses and clear-up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes and empty formality. We therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure."

27. The above principle with reference to hearing by a quasi judicial forum is not applicable to all situations in the hearing of the suit. "Hearing of the suit" as understood is not confined to oral hearing. "Hearing of the suit" begins when the evidence in the suit begins and is concluded by the pronouncement of judgment. The Code contemplates that at various stages of the hearing of the suit, the Judge may change or he may be prevented from concluding the trial and in that situation, the successor Judge must proceed in the suit from the stage the predecessor Judge has left it.

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal & ... vs M/S M.S.S.Food Products on 

25 November, 2011

Bench: Aftab Alam, R.M. Lodha

Citation;(2012) 2 SCC 196,2012 SAR(civil) 94

Print Page

Whether civil proceeding before Civil Court along with simultaneously filed complaint case before District Forum is maintainable

Upon hearing the respective Counsels, it is indubitable that the opposite party have not only initiated a civil proceeding before the Civil Court but simultaneously filed the complaint case before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner have put much stress on the fact that once the party resorted to a remedy which cannot be said to be inefficient or complete one, further remedy on the self-same cause of action is impermissible. In this regard, the Court can safely placed upon Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which says that the provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force. The three judge bench of the Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka -vs- Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society and Others; reported in (2003) 2 SCC 412 held that by reason of Section 3, the said Act supplement and not supplant the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or other statutory authorities. The right of the consumer to approach the Civil Court for necessary relief have been provided under the said Act itself, in the event, the complaint involved complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts. Furthermore, the relief claimed in the civil suit as narrated herein above and the relief claimed in the complaint petition before the Consumer Forum are distinct and separate which is clearly discernible from the set of facts as well as the prayers made in both the proceedings.

The civil suit is filed by the opposite party no.1 for declaration of his right as an owner of the said vehicle with consequential reliefs in form of injunctions whereas the complaint case is restricted to compensation for the alleged illegal acts of repossession by the petitioner and the damages which he suffers. This Court, therefore, does not find that both the proceedings are mutually destructive and cannot run concurrently. 

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)

T Finance Limited - vs Anup Kumar Bera on 20 January, 2014

Author: Harish Tandon

Citation;AIR 2014 CAl 78

Print Page

Whether statement made to police during investigation is admissible in civil proceeding?

Section 162 bars the use of any statement made before a police officer in the course of an investigation under Chapter XII, whether recorded in a police diary or otherwise, but, by the express terms of the Section, this bar is applicable only where such statement is sought to be used "at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made." If the statement made before the police officer in the course of an investigation under chapter XII is sought to be used in any proceeding other than an inquiry or trial or even at an inquiry or trial but in respect of an offence other than that which was under investigation at the time when such statement was made, the bar of section 162 would not be attracted. [152 A-C]

7:2. Section 162 has been enacted for benefit of the accused and to protect him against overzealous police officers and untruthful witnesses. But, this protection is unnecessary in any proceeding other than an inquiry or trial in respect of the offence under investigation and hence the bar created by the section is a limited bar. It has no application in a civil proceeding or in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution and a statement made before a police officer in the course of investigation can be used as evidence in such proceeding, provided it is otherwise relevant under the Indian Evidence Act.

Supreme Court of India

Khatri & Ors. Etc vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 March, 1981

Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1068, 1981 SCR (3) 145

Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.

Print Page