For Petitioner: Mr.Y.Dharanidharan for Mr.I Abrar Mohamed Abdullah

ORDER

This civil revision has been filed by the petitioner against the fair and decretal order dated 15.6.2026 in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S. No.120 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Omalur (for short, the Court below) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) came to be dismissed by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff. She filed the said suit against the defendant, who is none other than her eldest son, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining him from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. There are totally three properties, which are the subject matter of the said suit.

4. In the said suit, the respondent filed a written statement and took a specific stand that in so far as B and C schedule properties were concerned, they were joint family properties, that the respondent would be entitled for a share and that already a suit has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner before the Sub-Court, Omalur seeking for the relief of partition and it is pending.

5. During the pendency of the said suit, I.A.No.3 of 2024 came to be filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for passing a decree based on the admission made by the respondent – defendant in the written statement. This application was dismissed by the impugned order. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.

6. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent categorically admitted in paragraphs 8 and 11 of the written statement that he has been living separately in a rented house since 1997, that the said admission made by the respondent would clearly establish that the respondent was not in possession of the suit properties and that therefore, the Court below ought to have passed a decree, based on this admission, under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

7. The Court below, while dealing with this issue, took into consideration the fact that there are totally three items of properties, which are the subject matter of the said suit.

8. In so far as A schedule property is concerned, the petitioner is claiming right by virtue of a settlement deed executed by her mother. In so far as B & C schedule properties are concerned, the petitioner is claiming right by virtue of a settlement executed in her favour by her husband.

9. In so far the respondent is concerned, the stand taken is that B and C schedule properties are the joint family properties and that already a suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner seeking for partition is pending before the Sub-Court, Omalur.

10. In so far as B and C schedule properties are concerned, they require consideration of disputed facts and the issue can be decided only after completion of the trial.

11. In so far as A schedule property is concerned, the petitioner specifically relies upon the written statement filed by the respondent in the said suit.

12. In the case in hand, the said suit does not confine itself to one property and there are three properties, out of which, there is a dispute regarding B and C schedule properties.

13. While dealing with an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Court must keep in mind that admission is an exception to the ordinary rule and that civil disputes must be adjudicated after the parties are afforded full opportunity to let in evidence. This is in view of the fact that Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC results in the denial of a trial. Therefore, the Courts have to be very cautious while applying these provisions and only in cases where the