Admissions in pleadings or judicial admission admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admission.

It was held that the object of the First Proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act is to give benefit of those cases where a person has been defrauded or intimidated or there is want of due execution in execution of the document.

The Delhi High Court in the matter of Praveen Saini Vs. Reetu Kapur & Anr. (RFA 21/2018) on 08.01.2018 has imposed cost on a “dishonest” litigant for filing a false case and “scandalising the court“, saying “harshest of steps” be initiated against him for gross abuse of the legal process. The Hon’ble Court further held that the Appellant/ Defendant to be denied the benefit of any exception or the Proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act because the registered lease deed dated 14.7.2014 is witnessed by the father of the appellant/defendant and it is not disputed before this Court on a query being put by counsel for the appellant/defendant that the father of the appellant/defendant did in fact sign as a witness to this lease deed dated 14.7.2014.


The issue before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was whether fraud was played upon the Appellant/ Defendant by the Respondent/ Plaintiff.

The said RFA was filed against the decree passed by the Trial Court dated 25.09.2017 in favour of Plaintiffs/ Respondents/ Landlords under Order XII Rule 6 CPC so far as the grant of relief of possession of the suit premises is concerned. The Defendant/ Appellant/ Tenant contested that the agreement signed by him was an agreement to sell and not a lease deed, and the same was signed by playing fraud upon him.


The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi rejected the contentions of the Appellant/ Defendant/ Tenant by imposing a cost upon him and further initiating the criminal proceedings under S. 209 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Contempt of Court. The Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court and held that trial court was right while decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC by referring to the admissions made by the appellant/defendant in earlier judicial proceedings being a criminal complaint case filed by the appellant/defendant against the respondents/plaintiffs.

Further, while relying upon the case of Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram & Others (1974) 1 SCC 242, the Hon’ble Court held that the law is very much clear that admissions which are made in judicial proceedings are on a higher pedestal than evidentiary admissions made in the form of correspondence etc. and that judicial admissions can be a basis in themselves for deciding the claim.