MAHENDRABHAI HARIPRASAD UPADHYAY Vs. SAVITABEN CHHOTALAL BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The original plaintiff - respondent No.1 filed a suit against the original defendant No.2 petitioner and original defendant Nos.1 and 3 - respondent Nos. 2 & 3, for recovery of Rs.68,100.00 in the court of City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. In the Civil Suit the original defendant No.3 - respondent No.3 filed his written statement in which he had admitted the claim of the plaintiff - respondent No.1 in toto. The original defendant No.2 - petitioner herein, in the suit, filed application in the trial court and prayed for passing of the decree as per the provisions of order 12 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the defendant No.3 - respondent No.3. This application of the defendant No.2 - petitioner came to be dismissed by the learned trial court under its order dated 31st March, 1998. Against this order this Revision Revision Application has been filed by the defendant No.2 - petitioner before this court.

(3.) From the written statements of the defendant No.3 - respondent No.3, I find that he has admitted the claim of the plaintiff - respondent No.1 in toto. The learned counsel for the - defendant No.3 - respondent No.3 Mr. A.Y.Kogje submitted that he has no objection in case on the admission of the claim of the plaintiff - respondent No.1 by the defendant No.3 - Respondent No.3 as stated in his written statement a decree is passed under order 12 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in favour of the plaintiff - respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the plaintiff - respondent No.1 has also submitted before this court that he has no objection in passing of the decree by this court in favour of the plaintiff respondent No.1 against the defendant No.3 - respondent No.3 on the basis of the admission of the claim made by the defendant No.3 - respondent No.3 of the claim of the plaintiff - respondent No.1 in his written statement.