( 1 ) RESPONDENTS in C. R. P. No. 6082 of 2003 had moved C. M. P. No. 28786 of 2003 in c. M. P. No. 26985 of 2003 to vacate the interim order passed in C. M. P. No. 26985 of 2003 in C. R. P. No. 6082 of 2003 and at the stage of hearing of the vacate application, smt. C. Jayashree Sarathy, the learned counsel representing the vacate petitioners, had raised an objection relating to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition on the ground that the order impugned is an interim judgment and decree made in accordance with the provisions of Order 12, rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure (C. P. C.) and hence it is appealable and definitely not revisable.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel on record relating to the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel representing respondents in the Civil Revision Petition- vacate petitioners in C. M. P. No. 28786 of 2003.

( 3 ) THE present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of india as against the order and decree passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, made in I. A. No. 1767 of 2002 in O. S. No. 203 of 2002, dated 10-12-2002. The respondents in the Civil revision Petition moved I. A. No. 1767 of 2002 in O. S. No. 203 of 2002 on the file of III additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, under Order 12, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of C. P. C. for giving direction to the respondent-defendant to tender an amount of Rs. 14,45,000. 00 to the revision petitioners out of the suit amount as an interim measure pending disposal of the main suit. At para 5, the learned Judge had framed the following points for consideration: (I) Whether there is any clear and unambiguous admission on the part of the defendant with regard to the part of the suit amount? (ii) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrant the court to exercise its discretion under Order 12, Rule 6 of C. P. C. ?

( 4 ) THE learned Judge had discussed all the aspects in detail and also had adverted to the applicability of Order 12, Rule 6 of c. P. C. and had referred to State Bank of india v. M/s. Midland Industries and ultimately had arrived at a conclusion that in the light of the admissions, the petitioners- plaintiffs in the said application are entitled to the interim judgment and decree for rs. 5,00,000/- out of the total suit amount pending disposal of the main suit by virtue of the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of C. P. C. The remaining relief prayed for, no doubt, was negatived. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present Civil revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) ORDER 12, Rule G of C. P. C. reads as hereunder;"judgment on admissions:- (1) 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 give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced "under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced. "

( 6 ) SECTION 2 (2) of C. P. C. defines decree as in this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context- decree means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include (A) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation:- A decree is prelimi