Page No.# 1/3 vs Bablu Das
2023 Latest Caselaw 3523 Gua

                                                          Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010195782022




                        THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                            Case No. : CRP(IO)/226/2022

         RINJUMONI BORA SAHU AND ANR
         W/O- SRI AMAL KUMAR SAHU,
         R/O- BORERA GAON,
         TITABOR TOWN,
         P/S- TITABOR,
         AMGURI KHARIKOTIYA MOUZA,
         DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785630.

         2: AMAL KUMAR SAHU
          S/O- LT. KANAI SAHU

         R/O- BORERA GAON

         TITABOR TOWN

         P/S- TITABOR

         AMGURI KHARIKOTIYA MOUZA

         DISTRICT- JORHAT
         ASSAM
         PIN- 785630

         VERSUS

         BABLU DAS
         S/O- LT. NIKHIL DAS,
         R/O- TITABOR (NEAR WEEKLY MARKET),
         M/S DAS CYCLE MART, TITABOR TOWN CHARI ALI,
         AMGURI KHARIKATIA MOUZA,
         P/S- TITABOR, DISTRICT- JORHAT,
         ASSAM, PIN- 785630.
                                                                                    Page No.# 2/3


Advocate for the Petitioner      : MR. L N DIHINGIA

Advocate for the Respondent :




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                             ORDER

Date : 01-09-2023

Heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Pursuant to the order dated 04.08.2023, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner alone.

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the learned Munsiff, Titabor in T.S. No. 01/2020.

The petitioner being the landlord filed the suit against the respondent praying for ejectment. The learned court below proposed to refer the case to the Lok Adalat and before Lok Adalat there was a sitting of the parties on 26.08.2021. On that day, the respondent agreed to vacate the suit property within 31.12.2021. Thereafter in the Lok Adalat, the respondent did not appear.

On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner filed an application before the court below under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC praying for passing a decree on admission of the fact by the respondent. The learned trial court refused to grant the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that that the aforesaid admission was made in a pre-lok adalat sitting.

Order XII Rule 6 states that where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or Page No.# 3/3

give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

Since the respondent has admitted the fact of tenancy and agreed to vacate the suit property, the learned court below should have considered the same to be an admission and on the basis of such admission, order should have been passed. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the learned Munsiff, Titabor in T.S. No. 01/2020 is bad in law and is set aside.

The learned trial court shall consider the prayer of the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and pass appropriate order to that effect on the basis of the admission made by the respondent on 26.08.2021.

With the above direction, the revision petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant