HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2220 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision has been preferred by the plaintiffs in suit O.S.No.343 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1724 of 2010 under Order 12 Rule 6 of C.P.C to pass Judgment in favour of the first petitioner/plaintiff and against the respondents/defendants in the suit, on the basis that defendants 5 and 6 in the suit who have filed the written statement have admitted the right and title of the petitioners/plaintiffs. 2. However, the Court after examining the pleadings found that there is no unequivocal admission on the part of the respondents/defendants, admitting the claim of the petitioners. The defendants in their written statement have disputed the identity of the land forming part of schedule A and B of the plaint with that of the lands owned and held by them. Therefore, there is no admission much less a clear or unequivocal admission on the part of the defendants. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. Ltd., Vs. Union Bank of India and others[1], Judgment rendered by the Delhi High court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., Vs. Pal Properties (India) Pvt. Ltd.[2] and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in Rohini Bai Vs. Shah Babulal Ramanlal & Co., Vijayawada[3]. 4. Order 12 Rule 6 is a provision which facilitates the Court to expeditiously pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff where the defendants admit the claim or the case of the plaintiff in clear, unambiguous and unequivocal manner, but however, if the statement of fact is either not clear or is hedged by conditions or requires probing for purpose of ascertaining as to whether it amounts to an admission of the claim of the plaintiffs or not, in such cases, the provision under Order 12 cannot be invoked. 5. In the instant case, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem has found that the statement of fact narrated by the defendants 5 and 6 in their written statement merely states that the land held by them is entirely different and it is not tallying with that of plaint A or B schedule properties, either with regard to the boundaries or the extent. Therefore, the Court has rightly opined that such statement does not amount to any admission on the part of the defendants, for a decree or judgment to be passed to that extent as sought for by the petitioners in I.A.No.1724 of 2010. I have not found any infirmity or illegality committed by the Senior Civil Judge, warranting revisional jurisdiction and hence the civil revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. However, it would only be appropriate that the learned Senior Civil Judge will accord some priority to the suit and take it on out of turn basis and dispose it of within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless for me to make it know nthat any observations made in this judgment do not reflect any final adjudicationon the rights of the respective parties. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao 06-09-2011 SP HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2220 OF 2011 06-09-2011 SP [1] AIR 2000 Supreme Court pg 2740 [2] 2001 AIHC pg 2630 [3] 2004 (3) ALD 182 (DB)