1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2007 1. Shri Vassant Rauji Saval Dessai, major, married, and his wife; 2. Smt. Pushpawati Vassant Saval Dessai, major, housewife; 3. Shri Chandroji Rauji Saval Dessai, major, married, and his wife; 4. Smt. Suhasini Chandroji Saval Dessai, major, housewife, All residents of Saval Wada Pernem,-Goa. ... Applicants versus Shri Upendra Raghunath Deshprabhu, major, bachelor, landlord, resident of Naner Wado, Pernem-Goa. ... Respondent Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 24TH JANUARY, 2008. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 2. Applicants in this petition are Defendants in R.C.S. No. 156/2000/A. This revision is directed by them against Order dated 4-10-2006 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa by which the learned trial Judge has refused to decree the suit in terms of Order 12 Rule 6, C.P.C., based on an alleged admission, contained in letter dated 6-1-1999 sent by the Plaintiff to the Village Panchayat, prior to the filing of a suit. Respondent herein is the Plaintiff. 3. The suit has been filed by the Plaintiff on or about 13-1-1999 for a declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions. The declaration sought is that the Defendants which includes Defendant No.3 Shri Chandroji Rauji Saval Dessai, are not the tenants of the suit property. It appears that on 6-1-1999 the Plaintiff sent two letters complaining of illegal construction, one to the Gram Panchayat and the other to the Block Development Officer. In the first letter, there are sentences which read: “By name known as Shri Chandroji Rauji Saval Dessai who is the tenant in the said property. But without concerning me and my N.O.C. whereas I am the owner of the said property”. In the second letter, there is another sentence which reads “By name known as Shri Chandroji Raoji Sawal Desai whose name is entered in I and XIV Form in tenants column”. The Plaintiff had filed an application for dismissing the suit on the basis of the said statements in the first letter dated 6-1-1999, and, the learned trial Court observed that the 3 admission made by the parties had to be clear and unambiguous. The learned trial Court further observed that the said two letters were required to be proved by the Plaintiff. The learned trial Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the suit could not be dismissed outright at this stage and trial was required to be held. 4. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Defendants, contends that the very object of the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6, C.P.C., have been defeated by the learned trial Court by not dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff based on the said admission made in the first letter dated 6-1-1999. Learned Counsel further contends that the Plaintiff did not even attempt to explain the said admission in the reply dated 13-8-2003 filed opposing the application filed by the Plaintiff. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicants has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India and others ((2000) 7 SCC 120) particularly paras 12, 13 and 14. Para 12 reads as follows: “As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending the said Rule, it is stated that “where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled”. We 4 should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed”. 5. I have perused the Judgment of the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. In this case, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for a declaration that the Defendants are not the tenants of the Plaintiff. It is true that the Plaintiff has given no explanation in his reply dated 13-8-2003 as regards the so-called admission in the first letter dated 6-1-1999 but it does not mean that the Plaintiff would be precluded in giving explanation for the said alleged admission. It is well to remember that whether to pass a Judgment on admission or not is a matter of discretion of the Court and such relief cannot be claimed as a matter of right. An admission is not conclusive of matters stated therein. It is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which will depend on the circumstances it was made. It can be explained. It can be shown to be erroneous or untrue but before it can be acted upon it must be shown that it is clear, unconditional and unequivocal. That does not appear to have been the case at hand, when the first letter dated 6-1-1999 is read as a whole. The learned trial Court was therefore right in not dismissing the suit based on the so-called admission in the said letter. 5 6. There is no merit in this revision. Hence the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD