C.R.No.5449 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5449 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12.10.2011 Shashi Kapoor ....Petitioner Versus Mohinder Pal and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. S.C. Thatai, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J Defendant No.7-petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 6.8.2011 (P.9) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana vide which her application filed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing the judgment on admission of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 as well as defendant Nos.4 & 5 has been dismissed. Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit for separate possession by way of partition of 3/7th share (1/7th share each) regarding the premises in dispute with further prayer that the sale deed dated 26.7.2006 executed by Surender Nath- defendant/respondent No.1 and his wife Smt Jagdish Kumari-defendant No.6/respondent No.9 in favour of Shashi Bala Kapoor-defendant No.7/petitioner is illegal and null and void. Upon notice, defendant No.7 filed written statement opposing the suit. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was filed by defendant No.7/petitioner for passing the judgment on admission of C.R.No.5449 of 2011 #2# plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and for striking the names of defendant Nos.4 & 5. Said application was opposed by filing a reply. The learned trial Court after hearing both the sides, dismissed the application, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is wholly erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and defendant Nos.4 & 5 have clearly admitted that they have no right, title or interest in the premises in dispute, thus, it was obligatory upon the learned trial Court to pass the judgment on admission of the parties in stead of dismissing the application. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal as no case at all is made out by the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. A perusal of the paper book reveals that originally the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit for separate possession by way of partition of 3/7th share (1/7th share each) regarding the premises in dispute. A further perusal of the paper book reveals that on an earlier occasion, Surender Nath-respondent No.4 and his wife Jagdish Kumari-respondent No.9 filed Civil suit No.82 of 1980 against Smt Shakuntala Devi wife of late Gurdas Mal Sood for declaration that they C.R.No.5449 of 2011 #3# are owners in possession of the premises in dispute, which is the subject matter in the present suit. Upon notice, the defendant filed written statement and admitted the claim of the plaintiff and on the basis of admission, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.1980 (P.1) by the court of Sub Judge, IInd Class, Ludhiana. Thereafter, in the year 2001, present suit was filed. It transpires that during the pendency of the said suit, premises in dispute was sold by said Surender Nath and his wife Jagdish Kumari- respondent No.9 by way of registered sale deed dated 26.7.2006 in favour of Shashi Kapoor-petitioner and thereafter the plaint was amended on 14.12.2006 with a relief of declaration regarding the setting aside of sale deed dated 26.7.2006 and for permanent injunction as well. Thereafter, another civil suit was filed by respondent Nos.1,2,3,7 & 9 against the present petitioner along with Municipal Corporation. Ludhiana for permanent injunction restraining them from raising any construction etc. It transpires that in this civil suit filed by respondent Nos.1,2,3,7 & 8, an application dated 24.8.2007 (P.3) was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1,2 & 7 for withdrawal of the suit and thereafter another application (P.4) with a similar prayer was filed on behalf of respondent No.8 as well. Later on, the statements were made on behalf of respondent Nos.1,2 & 7 and qua them, this subsequent suit for permanent injunction was dismissed as withdrawn by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.8.2007 (P.6). C.R.No.5449 of 2011 #4# Thus, it is apparently clear that it is the subsequent suit for permanent injunction, which has been dismissed as withdrawn by the learned trial Court qua respondent Nos.1,2 & 7 and that is nothing to do with the suit filed by the respondent Nos.1,2 & 3 for separate possession by way of partition of the premises in dispute including declaration of sale deed dated 26.7.2006 as illegal, null and void. Moreover, there is nothing on record to substantiate that in the suit for partition by way of possession, the defendants have admitted the claim of plaintiffs rather the petitioner is unnecessary trying to take the undue benefit of statement made by some of the respondents in the subsequent suit for permanent injunction and as such, there is no occasion to invoke the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and to pass a judgment on the basis of admission as alleged by the petitioner. It is also clear from para No.3 of the impugned order that Mohinder Pal Sood-plaintiff/respondent No.1 had already died but still he has been impleaded as party in this petition without bringing his LRs on record. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 6.8.2011 passed by the learned trial Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. October 12, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE