1 WP 5613/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5613 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. D.S. Chandnani i/b Lexim Associates for the petitioner. Mr. P.D. Dalvi for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16TH DECEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 9th April 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, rejecting the petitioner’s application for dismissal of the marriage petition filed by the respondent on the ground that it was barred by res judicata and also under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”). 2 WP 5613/10 3. So far as the prayer for dismissal of the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is concerned, the prayer is misconceived. Order XII Rule 6 enables a Court to pass a decree on admission. It does not authorise the Court to dismiss the proceedings of the plaintiff/ petitioner on the basis of any alleged admission in the plaint/petition. Further more, in the present case there is no admission in the petition which would show that ex-facie the marriage petition filed by the respondent was not maintainable. As such, the trial Court committed no error in rejecting the prayer for dismissal of the marriage petition under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. 4. As regards the contention that the petition was barred by principles of res judicata, no preliminary issue was framed and therefore the trial Court was not required to decide any issue at the preliminary stage. The issue, if 3 WP 5613/10 any, regarding maintainability is required to be decided along with the other issues. The trial Court therefore committed no error in rejecting the application for dismissing the respondent’s petition forthwith as not maintainable without trial. 5. For these reasons, there is no merit in the petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)