R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this revision, the applicant challenges the validity of order dated 6.12.2000 whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. has been dismissed by the Court below. It appears that the applicant filed Suit No. 610 of 1984 for following reliefs: (A -1) That it be declared that the action of Mr. R.K. Somani, defendant No. 1 of usurping possession of the property is invalid, wrongful and mala fide; and (A -2) That it be declared that the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the sub -plot of its share in the disputed property which is 1/7th for the time being pending settlement of the dispute with regard to the properties belonging to Late H.K. Somani and Late Smt. Ratan Devi Somani.
(2.) THE said suit was contested by the defendants -respondents who denied the claim of the applicant. In the said suit the applicant filed an application for separation of his 1/7th share from the property in dispute under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. The said application was filed on the basis of the statement of fact made in paragraph 2(e) of the written statement filed by Sri R.K. Somani, the respondent No. 1. The application field by the applicant was objected to and opposed by the respondents. Another suit No. 212 of 1987 is alleged to have been filed by the respondent No. 1 for partition of plot No. 34 situated in Block No. 34, Gotaiya Scheme No. 7, now bearing Municipal No. 7/176, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur. In paragraphs Nos. 2 and 4, 1/7th share of the applicant in the property in dispute is also alleged to have been admitted. The aforesaid two suits were subsequently consolidated. The court below, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application filed by the applicant holding that at that stage of the suit 1/7th share claimed by the applicant in the property in dispute could not be separated. Whole suit is to be decided after parties produced evidence in support of their cases and whatever share is ultimately found, shall be given to the parties and rejected the application by the impugned order as defendant No. 2 did not accept the claim of the applicant. It was also observed that at that stage it could not be held that the applicant had 1/7th or 1/5th share in the property in dispute as claimed by him. Hence, the present revision. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently urged that the respondents, in the written statement, clearly admitted the 1/7th share of the applicant in the property in dispute, therefore, the same was liable to be separated in exercise of power under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. The court below has acted illegally in rejecting the application filed by the applicant.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and also perused the record. Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C., provides as under: 6. Judgment on admissions. - -(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination 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.;