PARKASH KAUR Vs. AMANDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 24.05.2013 [Annexure P/6], whereby decree was not passed by the trial Court on the written statement furnished by minor defendants, represented by their mother, Smt. Kulwinder Kaur, as natural guardian and next friend, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, is challenged by the plaintiff, Smt. Parkash Kaur, petitioner herein.

(2.) NO doubt, judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC may be passed if admission is clear, categorical and certain. Reference may be made to the judgments in Uttam Singh Dugal and Co. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India, 200 4 RCR(Civil0 89, and Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Anr, 2005 2 RCR(Rent) 23.

(3.) MERELY because the defendants have admitted the plaintiffpetitioner to be entitled to 1/5th share in the property in dispute ipso facto would not result in passing of the decree in her favour, particularly when there are important collateral issues which need to be adjudicated.