A decree based on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can only be granted where admissions are clear and unequivocal; contentious issues of title and possession necessitate thorough evidence and framing of issues, precluding summary judgment.

ORDER :

M.Nirmal Kumar, J.

Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. Earlier, the Petitioner / Plaintiff filed a Suit in C.S.No.366 of 2004 before this Court, for the relief of permanent injunction, and this Court transferred the same to the file of the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on the point of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction and the same was renumbered as O.S.No.11761 of 2010.

3. The Petitioner / Plaintiff filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.07 of 2023 in O.S.No.11761 of 2010 under Order XIV Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of CPC., to strike down the additional issues framed by the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on 12.06.2023. Further, the Petitioner filed an Application in I.A.No.08 of 2023 under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC., to claim Judgment on alleged admission from the written statement without waiting for determination of questions in controversy in the Suit without letting evidence. The learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissed the above Applications. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

4. Mr.K.V.Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner / Plaintiff would submit that, if at all the 1^st Respondent is seeking for recovery of possession, he should have resorted to file a separate suit for recovery of possession or otherwise should have filed a counter claim with a cause of action and payment of necessary court fees for such recovery of possession. The Court below ought not to have appreciated the Memo filed by the 1^st respondent seeking to frame additional issues touching upon the title of the property, when the Suit is for a bare injunction. The Court below ought not to have concluded that the present Applications filed after lapse of 19 years and written statement of 1^st Defendant was filed after a period of 18 years during 2022 and when the additional issues framed only on 22.06.2023. The trial Judge is wrong in gone into the issue of maintainability of the Suit on the ground that the suit is not par with the Pecuniary Jurisdiction, when the application is filed only for the purpose of striking off the additional issues which framed after a period of 19 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Karan Kapoor Vs. Madhuri Kumar reported in (2022) 10 SCC 496; Uttam Singh Dugal and CoLtd. Vs. Union Bank of India reported in (AIR 2000 SC 2740); Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd., Vs.Jasbir Singh Chadha reported in (2010) 6 SCC 601; Parivar Seva Sansthan Vs. Veena Kalra reported in AIR 2000 Del. 349; Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 and Jitta Anjy Reddy Vs Ahmed Alikhan reported in (1990) SCC OnLine AP 430

5. Mr.N.S.Sivakumar, the learned counsel for the Respondents / Defendants would submit that the present Revisions are filed only to protract the trial proceedings inspite of time limited stipulated twice by this Court arise out of the proceedings in C.R.P.(PD)No.6 of 2014, dated 17.02.2021 and C.R.P.No.82 of 2023, dated 13.03.2023 wherein six months' time stipulated by this Court to complete the trial. The Petitioner Club has no role to play when the Suit scheduled property hit by and Urban Land Ceiling Act , 1979 and the same was repealed in the year 1999 and the Government of Tamil Nadu did not use the suit scheduled property for any public use hence upon the struck down of Urban Land Ceiling Act , the Suit scheduled property vested back to t