List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Pushpa & Ors. v. Dayawati & Ors. (2026), held that a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be passed only where the admission is absolutely clear, categorical, and unconditional. The Court further held that pleadings must be read holistically and cannot be construed in a piecemeal manner, and that a High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot substitute its own interpretation merely because another view is possible.

What was the Background of Pushpa & Ors. v. Dayawati & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose from a Hindu family matter concerning the distribution of sale proceeds from a jointly owned agricultural property.  
• The property was sold for approximately ₹15.31 crore, and each of the six co-owners was entitled to a 1/6th share, amounting to approximately ₹2.55 crore each. 
• In his written statement, Defendant No. 3 stated that under a family settlement, each party had received ₹3 crore from the sale proceeds.  
• Relying on this statement as an admission, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking recovery of ₹44,79,167/- — the amount by which Defendant No. 3's receipt of ₹3 crore allegedly exceeded his legitimate 1/6th share of ₹2,55,20,833/-. 
• The District Court dismissed the application, holding that the controversy required a full trial and that the issues already framed could be adjudicated only upon appreciation of evidence.  
• On civil revision before the Delhi High Court, the order was reversed, and the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 3 for ₹44,79,167/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. The legal heirs of Defendant No. 3 challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the nature of admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: The Court held that not every statement made by a party in pleadings can automatically result in a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The admission must be categorical, unambiguous, unconditional, and unequivocal. A mere reference to inconsistencies in statements does not constitute an admission where disputed factual circumstances exist that require adjudication at a full-fledged trial. 
• On reading pleadings holistically: The Court emphasised that pleadings cannot be read in a piecemeal manner and must be construed holistically. The High Court erred in isolating a single portion of Defendant No. 3's written statement and treating it as an unequivocal admission of liability, particularly when Defendant No. 3 had not, anywhere in the pleadings, admitted any liability towards the respondent. 
• On the scope of revisional jurisdiction: The Court held that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited in scope and can be exercised only where a jurisdictional error or material irregularity is demonstrated. A High Court cannot substitute its own interpretation of pleadings merely because an alternative view is possible. The High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the present case was found to be improper and excessive. 
• On the legal principles summarised: The Court laid down the following principles governing judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC 
  • A judgment on admission is an exception to the general rule that civil disputes must be decided after affording parties a full opportunity to lead evidence. Since it results in the denial of a trial, the provision must be applied with caution. 
  • The admission must be absolutely clear, categorical, and unconditional. A non-categorical or ambiguous statement cannot sustain a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. 
  • Disputed questions of fact cannot be decided through a judgment on admission and must be adjudicated at trial upon appreciation of evidence. 
  • Pleadings must be read as a whole; no part can be isolated and construed independently to fasten liability on a party. 
• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The High Court's order was set aside, and the District Court's order directing adjudication of the dispute at trial was restored.

What is Order XII Rule 6 CPC? 

Order XII Rule 6 CPC — Judgment on Admissions  

Bare Provision:  

• Sub-rule (1): Court may make an order or give judgment on admissions of fact made in pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, at any stage of the suit, on application by any party or suo motu, without waiting for determination of other questions between the parties.  
• Sub-rule (2): Where judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up accordingly, bearing the date of the judgment.  

Key Features:  

• Admissions may be express or implied, written or oral, made before institution of suit, after filing, or during pendency of proceedings.  
• Court's power is discretionary — it shall have regard to such admissions when passing orders.  
• Admission need not be confined to pleadings — it may be made dehors the pleadings, i.e., in any document or statement recorded before the court.  
• Two separate decrees may be passed: one for the admitted claim and another for the non-admitted or contested claim.  
• A decree under this rule may be either preliminary or final.  

Effect of 1976 Amendment:  

• Pre-amendment, Rule 6 allowed judgment on admission only on a party's application.  
• Post-amendment, the court may also act suo motu.  
• Admissions are no longer confined to Order VI Rules 1 and 4 — they are of general application.  

Important Judicial Pronouncements:  

• Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India (2000): Where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter judgment and pass a decree on the admitted claim. The scope of Order XII Rule 6 should not be narrowed down where a party is entitled to succeed on a plain admission of the opposite party.  
• ITDC Ltd. v. Chander Pal Sood and Son (2000): Rule 6 confers very wide discretion on the court. The word "otherwise" means the court can pass judgment not only on pleadings but also on statements made dehors the pleadings — including any document or statement recorded in court. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of C v. A & Anr. (2026), held that a prior acquittal in a criminal case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code does not preclude a civil court from directing a DNA test to determine biological paternity.  

• The Court affirmed concurrent orders of the trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court directing the appellant to undergo DNA profiling, holding that scientific determination of parentage is indispensable where no other evidence can conclusively resolve the question.

What was the Background of C v. A & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute traces its origins to 1999. The first respondent, born in September 1999, claimed to be the biological son of the appellant, alleging that his birth was the result of a relationship between the appellant and his mother. The appellant consistently denied paternity throughout. 
• A criminal case was registered against the appellant under Section 376 IPC on the complaint of the first respondent's mother. The appellant was acquitted in those proceedings. Separate maintenance litigation also concluded without a definitive finding on paternity. 
• After attaining majority, the first respondent instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration of biological parentage and consequently a share in the appellant's property. During the pendency of the suit, the trial court directed a DNA test. The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed this order, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the effect of a prior criminal acquittal: The Court held that an acquittal in a criminal case merely establishes that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It does not amount to a conclusive finding that no biological relationship exists between the parties. The standard of proof in criminal proceedings is distinct from the inquiry in a civil paternity dispute, and an acquittal in the former cannot foreclose the latter. 
• On the right of the respondent to know his parentage: The Court recognised that the first respondent had spent his entire life amid conflicting assertions about his parentage. It noted that if the question remained unresolved, he could potentially be denied legal rights — including inheritance — that would lawfully accrue to him if he were found to be the appellant's biological son. 
• On balancing privacy rights: The Court acknowledged the appellant's right to privacy but held that it must be balanced against the first respondent's right to establish his biological identity and the legal entitlements flowing from it. The Court noted that nothing on record indicated that the first respondent's mother had a relationship with any man other than the appellant during the relevant period, making the DNA test necessary to conclusively resolve the dispute. 
• On the necessity of scientific evidence: The Court observed that scientific evidence becomes indispensable in paternity disputes when no other evidence can conclusively determine biological parentage. In such circumstances, directing a DNA test is not a violation of rights but a proportionate measure in the interest of justice.

What is DNA Testing?  

About:   

• DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) testing is a scientific method that analyzes genetic material to determine biological relationships, particularly paternity and maternity.  
• DNA testing involves comparing genetic markers between individuals to establish biological connections with over 99% accuracy in paternity cases.  
• The test can be conducted using various samples including blood, saliva, hair follicles, or cheek swabs.  

Types of DNA Tests:  

• Paternity Testing: Determines biological father of a child.  
• Maternity Testing: Establishes biological mother (rare cases).  
• Kinship Testing: Determines relationships between relatives.  
• Identity Testing: Used in criminal investigations and mass disasters. 

Courts in India have the power to direct DNA tests in civil suits concerning paternity under the general powers of the court to order discovery and production of evidence. The relevant legal framework includes: 

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 116 of BSA): 

• Birth during a valid marriage raises a conclusive presumption of legitimacy. 
• This presumption can only be rebutted by proof of non-access between the parties during the period of conception. 
• Courts have held that DNA evidence may be ordered where this presumption is sought to be rebutted or where no marriage subsists and paternity is disputed.

Judicial Position on DNA Testing: