CR No. 567 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 1.5.2009 (1) Civil Revision No. 567 of 2009 (O&M) Rattan .. Petitioner v. Temple Shivji and others .. Respondents (2) Civil Revision No. 568 of 2009 (O&M) Rattan .. Petitioner v. Temple Shivji and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned two petitions, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The facts have been noticed from C.R. No. 567 of 2009. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below, in an application filed by the respondents for withdrawal of the admissions already made in the written statement filed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that he was owner in possession of the suit land and decree dated 7.1.1994, suffered by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 2 to 7 in favour of respondent No. 1 was unlawful, fraudulent, void and not binding on the petitioner-plaintiff. Initially, the predecessor-in- interest of respondents No. 2 to 7, namely, Kishori Lal, who was defendant in the suit, in which the decree under challenge was passed, filed written statement admitting the claim of the petitioner. However, lateron application was filed for withdrawal of the admissions made in the written statement. Vide impugned order, the learned court below kept the application pending to be decided with main case. CR No. 567 of 2009 [2] It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the respondents-defendants had filed written statement admitting the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff and also admitted that a compromise had arrived at between the parties, any application filed for withdrawal thereof should have been decided by the learned court below first before proceeding further in the case. As in the present case, the prayer for withdrawal of the admission was not granted, there was no question of leading any evidence in the case and the same would be merely an exercise in futility. The learned court below has gone wrong in opining that the prayer shall be considered at the time of final determination of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. As the facts have been noticed by the learned court below, it is a case where Kishori Lal had suffered a decree in favour of respondent No. 1- Temple in the suit filed on 7.10.1993 and thereafter the property in dispute was mutated in the name of the Temple. It was sought to be alleged in the plaint that there was a family settlement arranged on 20.8.1992, in terms of which the petitioner-plaintiff had become owner in possession of the suit property. The suit was filed on 7.6.1999, in which the alleged compromise dated 11.6.1999 was also produced. The learned court below opined that it is not a case of simplicitor transfer of property in the name of the petitioner by Kishori Lal on the basis of a family settlement. The property, in fact, had been transferred by him in favour of respondent No. 1-Temple by suffering a consent decree way back in the year 1994. As to whether Kishori Lal had any right to file a consenting written statement admitting the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff on the date when he had already transferred the suit property in favour of respondent No. 1-Temple by suffering a consent decree, is the question which is to be decided and the same can be appreciated only after the parties lead their evidence. Considering this fact, the learned court below opined that it would be appropriate to consider such a plea at the time of final determination of the suit. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 1.5.2009 mk CR No. 567 of 2009 [3]