The petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 3 are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 15045 of 2001. The said suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs. 19,33,74,411/- jointly and severally from respondents and others along with interest at the rate of 30% p.a. and all other consequential reliefs. Suffice it to say that the proceedings had a checkered career.

2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings could be summarised as follows:

In terms of certain Memorandum of Understanding dated 29-9-1995, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 3.52 crores to the 1st respondent and an additional sum of Rs. 2.88 crores to the 3rd respondent in all aggregating to Rs. 6.40 crores. In terms of the said agreement between the parties, the respondents were not in a position to develop the immovable' properties agreed to be sold under the said Memorandum of Understanding the respondents who are the defendants would refund the said amount paid by the petitioners together with interest. Since the said amount was not paid by the respondents, the present suit is filed for recovery of the said amount which in inclusive of interest. It appears certain correspondence has taken place between the parties in respect of the dispute and there appears to be a certain confirmation letter stated to have been written by one of the defendants confirming a: sum of Rs. 920 lakhs, which according to the petitioner is the principle amount claimed in the suit which is inclusive of the interest of Rs. 65 lakhs. An application I.A. No.4 was filed by the respondents herein under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the dispute raised by the plaintiff-petitioner to arbitration and to dismiss the suit as not maintainable. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge are not germane for disposal of the present proceedings. Be that as it may, the learned Trial Judge rejected the application I.A. No.4 on the ground that it is not a case where the proceedings will have to be suspended under Section 8 of the Act and the matter will have to be referred to the Arbitrary Tribunal. The said order passed by the learned Trial Judge is produced at Annexure-K The said order was challenged by the respondents before this Court in C.R.P. No. 3857 of 2002. An application was also filed in the said revision petition for staying of all further proceedings of the suit in O.S. No. 15045 of 2001. This Court, while granting an interim order of stay directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 2 crores out of the undisputed principal amount at Rs. 9.25 crores within 15 days failing which the revision petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. The said order passed by this Court in the civil revision petition is produced at Annexure-L. The said order was challenged by the respondents before the Apex Court in SLP © No. 24069 of 2002. The Apex Court did not grant special leave and thereby dismissed the special leave petition. At this point of time, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application I.A. No.2 under Order 12, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking a judgment on the admissions, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay the admitted principle sum of Rs. 9,20,69,032/-. The sum and substance of the said application is that from time to time since 1996-1999, the 1st respondent-Company acknowledged its liability in writing to the plaintiff and promised to pay the said outstanding dues. The said acknowledgment is by way of confirmation of certain letters stated to have been written by the respondents. Some of them are produced in the present petition, which are at Annexures-G, Hand J. In view of these admitted documents confirming the liability, the present application under Order 12, Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed seeking a judgment on the basis of admissions, which has given raise to the present proceedings. The said application was seriously opposed and di