Order 12, Rule 6 CPC does not bar a plaintiff from producing evidence if an application filed by him has been dismissed by the trial court.

1. - The petitioner-defendants are aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2014 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed an application filed under Order 12, Rule 6 CPC by the petitioners.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff, Chandra Prakash Agarwal, filed a suit for specific performance, injunction and possession against the petitioner-defendants with regard to an agricultural land situated in village Neendad, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. According to him, the petitioners had agreed to sell the suit property for a total of Rs. 6,70,00,000/-. Thus, both the parties had entered into an agreement to sell on 22.3.2013. According to the agreement, an amount of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- was paid through four cheques by the plaintiff to the petitioners. It was further agreed that the remaining amount shall be paid on 31.5.2013, and the sale-deed be registered in the plaintiff's favour. However, subsequently the petitioners refused to get the sale-deed registered, despite the offer by the respondent-plaintiff with regard to the remaining amount.

3. The petitioners filed their written statement. During the proceedings, initially, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order 12, Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC wherein the respondent-plaintiff prayed that since in the written statement the petitioners have admitted the fact that an agreement to sell was entered between the parties, and have also admitted the fact that a notice was sent to them for performance of the contract, therefore, the judgment should be pronounced on the basis of such admission. However, by order dated 15.2.2014 the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff.

4. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Order 12, Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC, and pleaded that once the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been dismissed, and since no prayer was made by the respondent-plaintiff for producing his evidence, therefore, the plaintiff is now pre-empted from producing any evidence. Therefore, the Court should not permit the respondent-plaintiff from examining his witness. However, vide order dated 3.5.2014 the learned Judge has dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, has pleaded that under the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff has two options before him: firstly, to prove his case on the basis of cogent evidence submitted by him; secondly, to rely upon certain admissions made by the defendants and to file an application under Order 12, Rule 6 CPC, and to request the trial court to pass its judgment and decree on the basis of admissions made by the defendants in the written statement. Moreover, in case an alternate prayer is not made by the plaintiff that if the application were to be dismissed by the learned trial court, he should still be permitted to submit his evidence in order to establish his case, then in such a situation he cannot be permitted to lead evidence. In order to buttress this submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Shri Shankar Parmeshwar Mistri v. Shri Jagdish Makwana & Anr. [(2013) 5 ABR 52]. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the learned Judge has committed an illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners, and in permitting the respondent-plaintiff to produce his evidence to establish his case.

6. On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Shah, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that there is no bar contained in Order 12, Rule 6 CPC which preempts the plaintiff from submitting his evidence in case an application filed by him has been rejected by the learned trial court. Therefore, a bar cannot be read into Rule 6 Order 12 CPC. Secondly, the the case of Shri Shankar Parmeshwar Mistri (supra) is distinguishable on the facts itself. Las