The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court to pass a preliminary decree based on admissions and the requirement for parties to disclose the pendency of any appeal in related proceedings.

ORDER :

The sole defendant before the trial Court is the revision petitioner. The two plaintiffs in the suit are the respondents herein. This civil revision petition filed under Section 115 C.P.C. questions the correctness of order dated 25.02.2019 of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.813 of 2018 in O.S.No.514 of 2015. By the impugned order, which was made under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C., the trial Court held its opinion that there were adequate admissions to pass a preliminary decree directing the tenant to vacate the suit schedule property. It is in challenge to that, the tenantdefendant has come up with this revision.

2. O.S.No.514 of 2015 is a suit filed with the following prayers :

“a) Directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property, his men and belongings and put the plaintiffs in vacant plaint schedule property;

b) Directing the defendants to pay the mense profits or damages as prayed by the plaintiffs to be ascertained by the Advocate Commissioner as appointed by the Honourable Court upon separate application filed by the plaintiff in the event of decree;

c) Costs of the suit;

d) for such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Defendant filed a written statement traversing all the plaint mentioned allegations and sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs stating that the litigation commenced is vexatious. While the suit was pending and three years after the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order XIX Rule 6 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with the following prayer “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitionerplaintiffs most respectfully pray that the honourable court be pleased in the ends of justice and fair play to take cognizance of the admissions of the jural relationship and service of quit notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and also the fact that in law the tenancy is only month-to-month and grant decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and against the respondentdefendant directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property forthwith or within such time as be specified by the honourable Court, as otherwise the petitionerplaintiffs are bound to suffer irreparable loss and injury.”

That application is I.A.No.813 of 2018.

4. The defendant in the suit filed a verified counter contending that the application is not maintainable and there are no merits in it and it had to be dismissed with costs.

5. After hearing learned counsel on both sides and after considering the plaint and the written statement and the contents of the petition and the counter, a very elaborate order consisting of 33 pages was passed by learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and finally it allowed the petition and passed the following order

“41. In the result, petition is allowed by preliminarily decreeing the suit directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property and to put the plaintiffs in vacant possession of plaint schedule property within three months of this order and that plaintiffs are at liberty to file a separate application for ascertaining the mesne profitsdamages, as prayed by them by way of appointing an advocate commissioner for that purpose.”

Then it also passed a preliminary decree. A copy of which is available on record and the preliminary decree that is passed is extracted here

“1. that the petition be and the same is hereby preliminarily decreed;

2. that the respondentdefendant be and hereby directed to vacate the plaint schedule property and to put the plaintiffs in vacant possession of plaint schedule property within three months of this order;

3. that the plaintiffs are at liberty to file a separate application for ascertaining the mense profitsdamages, as prayed by them by way of appointing an advocate commissioner for that purpose;

4. that there be no order as to costs.

(copy of the pl