IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.965 of 2007 Seth Chanda Gupta, Son of Late Sri Thakur Prasad, R/o Thakur Bhawan, In Front of Police Line, Golghar, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna.-------------------------Petitioner-Plaintiff. Versus 1.Baijnath Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Jamuna Prasad Gupta, R/o Paliganj Bazar, P.S.- Paliganj, District-Patna. ---------------------Opposite Party no.1-Defendant no.1. 2. Girija Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Ramanand Prasad, R/o Paliganaj, P.S.- Paliganaj, District- Patna, At present , Residing at Opposite New Police Line, Budh Marg, Patna. -Opposite Party no.2-Defendantno.2 ----------- 3. 20.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 06.02.2007 passed by Sub Judge II, Civil Court, Patna in Title Suit No. 498 of 1993 by which the petition filed by plaintiff to pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. on the basis of admission made by the defendant in his deposition has been rejected. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his title over the suit property asserting that he has purchased the suit property but in view of the feeling of his father the sale deed was executed in the name of his wife alongwith his two brothers. The plaintiff by stating 2 different circumstances has prayed for the relief of declaration of his title over the suit property. The defendant has filed the written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff .After framing of the issue the suit proceeded for the hearing and the defendants were also examined as witnesses in the suit. On 01.04.2004 the plaintiff filed a petition under Order XII, Rule 6 C.P.C. praying for a judgment and decree in his favour under order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. in view of the admission made by the defendant in his deposition. The learned court below after hearing the parties has come to the finding by the impugned order that there is neither admission in the pleading of the parties nor the defendants have specifically admitted any portion of the claim of the plaintiff in their deposition and the learned court further held that it would be better to decide the issues in order to avoid all future complications. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the statement made in paragraph no. 34 of his deposition by defendant no.1, Baijnathj Prasad Gupta wherein he has stated that “Vadi ka Vad Patra Sahi hai”. The learned counsel for the petitioner has 3 submitted that this admission is sufficient for passing a decree under Order XII, Rule 6 C.P.C. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the records of the case it does not appear that any categorical admission within the meaning of order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. has been made by the defendants. The learned court below has considered the facts and submissions in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion that the suit should be disposed of after considering the evidence and pleadings of the parties after final hearing. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision application is accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh/ ( V. Nath, J.)