The court must exercise judicial discretion and may refuse to pass a decree solely on the basis of the admission of the parties.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This revision petition is against the order dated 16th Aug., 2003 by which the trial court directed the plaintiff's husband Mohd. Jakir to keep the plaintiff present in person in the court. The grievance of the petitioner is that the trial court has passed the non-speaking order and therefore, this order be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in reply to the plaintiff's suit allegations, defendant submitted written statement admitting the suit claim of the plaintiff, therefore, there is no need for the court to direct the plaintiff to remain present or direct the plaintiff's husband to keep the plaintiff present in the court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner provided copy of the plaint and the agreement dated 24th July, 2000 on the basis of which the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff and has not been decreed by the trial court despite the admission of the defendant admitting claim of the plaintiff in written statement.

4. It is projected in the plaint by the plaintiff that the plaintiff agreed to give her plot No. 74 situated near Naio-ki-Bagechi, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur to the defendant on payment of cash consideration of patty. amount of Rs. 500/- only and defendant agreed that he will transfer his plot No. 856 situated at Chopasani Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. The suit valuation put by the plaintiff is As. 500/- only, which appears to be only cash consideration mentioned in. the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant dated 24th July, 2002. The plaintiff did not include the valuation of her plot as actual consideration for seeking decree for getting plot of defendant. The suit has been filed in the Court having jurisdiction to hear suit up to the valuation of Rs. 25,000/- only. Interestingly, the defendant put in appearance In response to summons issued by the Court and on the first date of hearing and submitted written statement and admitted the plaint allegation.

5. The grievance of the plaintiff is that despite admitting entire claim of the plaintiff by the defendant in written statement, the trial court instead of passing decree in favour of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C., by order dated 16th Aug., 2003 directed plaintiff to remain present in the Court, which is illegal.

6. From the plaint, it appears that the suit has been filed in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1 after valuing the suit for As. 500/- only with a prayer that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff that the defendant be directed to transfer the plot No. 856 situated at Chopasani Road, Jodhpur in favour of the person or persons to be named by the plaintiff. It appears that the trial court despite filing written statement by the defendant admitting the claim of the plaintiff, instead of proceeding to pass a decree on the basis of the admission of the defendant, directed the plaintiff herself to remain present person in the Court. Obviously, reason for direction to the plaintiff to remain present in person in the Court must be as per the provisions of Order 10 Rule 1 C.P.C., but it appears that after writing that the plaintiff be kept in person in the Court, the order does not contains purpose for which plaintiff was called in Court.

7. In view of the pleadings and in view of the agreement and in-view of the nature of the suit projected by the plaintiff in her plaint and in view of the fact of not giving any valuation of the entire consideration for getting the decree for the plot No. 856 and in view of the nature of relief and to find out reason for filing suit as defendant on first date of hearing admitted the claim of the plaintiff in such a suit, the Court must have thought fit to examine the plaintiff so as to find out the truth out from the pleadings of both the parties and to find out who is right, as the plaintiff may be right, defendant may be right and one of both may be half right and half wrong or both may be wrong.