Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J.

1. Instant revision petition is directed against rejection of application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC read with section 151 CPC moved by the defendant-petitioner in a suit for partition and injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The brief facts necessary to resolve the controversy is that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for partition and injunction with respect to the suit property claiming that the suit property belongs to the adoptive mother of the plaintiff who expired on 05.12.1989 and as a consequence whereof plaintiff and defendant No. 1, adoptive father of the plaintiff became the co-owners of the suit property. It was further being alleged that the defendant No. 1 wrongly entered into a development agreement with defendant No. 2 who started construction upon the suit property whereas the plaintiff was co-owner to the extent of half share in the same and hence relief of partition and injunction was sought in the plaint.

3. An application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC was moved in the suit by defendant No. 1/1 with the assertion that in a previously instituted suit titled as Lal Singh & Others v. Hawa Kanwar & Others bearing Civil Suit No. 18/1979 wherein the plaintiff of the instant suit Sumer Singh who was defendant No. 3 moved an application on 03.03.1987 asserting that he did not want to press the issue of adoption. It was further asserted that in another Suit No. 23/1980 for declaration and injunction with respect to Khasra No. 475, plaintiff, Sumer Singh presented an application which reads as under:-

^^mijksDr nkok eSaus Jh gfj flag iq= lR;nku flag dk nRrd iq= ?kksf"kr djus o vkjkth [kljk uEcj 475 esa cus dPps edkuksa ls u fudkyus ckcr+ is'k fd;k gSA eSa mijksDr nksuksa mtjkr ¼Dyse½ okil ysrk gwa vkSj nkok mBkuk pkgrk gwaA [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk viuk ogu djsaxsaA**

4. Thus, it was asserted that once plaintiff has admitted in judicial proceedings that he is not the adopted son of Hari Singh, he was bound by the admission and hence no cause of action to institute the suit for partition and injunction again claiming himself to be the adopted son of Hari Singh and his wife Hawa Kanwar arose. It was further claimed that even if application under Order 7, Rule 11 was considered not to be fully applicable as the suit being frivolous and vexatious ought to have been rejected u/sec.151 CPC.

5. Plaintiff submitted his reply to the above application of defendant No. 1/1 and admitted that he filed a Suit No. 23/1980 titled as Sumer Singh v. Hari Singh before the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu and withdrew the suit on the basis of compromise but asserted that the same was not decided on merit and hence was of no consequence. The other application dated.03.03.1987 moved in suit No. 18/1979 filed by defendant No. 1/1 was also not denied in the reply but it was asserted that this suit was also not decided on merit. It was further asserted that the issues were already framed in the suit and the application was misconceived at such stage.

6. Upon hearing the rival contention, the ld. Trial Court rejected the application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC on the ground that as the adoption of the plaintiff was not decided on merit and the previous proceedings referred to in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was with respect to different property, application was not maintainable.

7. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner vehemently contended that the reasoning given by the ld. Trial Court was perverse, illegal and the impugned order if allowed to stand could cause grave injury to the rights of the petitioners. He contended that admission is the best evidence against the maker and admission in judicial proceedings stands at a much higher footing and pedestal. He contended that when once the plaintiff admitted that he was not the adoptive son of Hari Singh and Hawa Kanwar, he cannot wriggle back from his own admission after so many years and by his cl