R.L. Jhanwar, J.
This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26 August, 2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 3-A of 2004 by the 8th Additional District Judge, Raipur whereby the suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff was allowed.
It is not disputed that there was agreement to sell the land between the Appellants/Defendants and Respondent/Plaintiff over the suit land. It is also not in dispute that Appellants have received consideration in advance.
Brief facts, in nutshell, for disposal of this case are that the Appellants/Defendants are the landlords of agricultural land bearing Kh. No. 1485/4 area 1.748, Patwari Halka Number 105 situate at Bhatgaon, District Raipur (for short ''the suit land''). The Appellants/Defendants have executed an agreement Ex. P.1 dated 24.03.2002 by virtue of which the Appellants/Defendants agreed to sell the suit land to the Respondent/Plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 5,37,000/- and out of which a sum of Rs. 60,500/- was given to the Respondents on 24.03.2002. In agreement paragraph 5, it has been stated that as and when the Respondents are in need of money, the Defendant shall pay them. On the basis of condition, the Defendant paid them a sum of Rs. 3,46,910/- from time to time. It is also pleaded that as a matter of fact the suit land was heath land and the Defendant had to spent a sum of Rs. 7,200/- in diverting the heath land to agricultural land. When on 27.03.2002 the Respondent asked for receipt of Rs. 20,000/-, which was given to the Appellants/Defendants on 23.03.2003, the Defendants denied and threatened the Respondent herein that they would increase the cost of land. Ultimately, after 2-3 days on 27.03.2003 the Defendant No. 1 threatened the Respondent to dispossess him from the suit land. Apprehending the issuance of threat, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit before the Court of 8th Additional District Judge, Raipur praying for declaring the suit land in possession of the Plaintiff and permanent injunction.
The Defendants filed a written statement denying all the averments made in plaint.
The learned Judge has, after giving the opportunity to the parties and after appreciating the evidence available on record, has allowed the suit in favour of Respondent/Plaintiff and against the Appellants/Defendants by virtue of which it was ordered that the Respondents shall not alienate or create any third party interest or interference (by them) over the suit land. It is this judgment against which the Defendants are before this Court praying for allowing this appeal by setting aside and quashing the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.08.2004.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants argued that the impugned judgment and decree has been passed ex parte without giving any opportunity to the Appellants/Defendants and the Court below ought to have given an opportunity to the Appellants/Defendants to contest the suit and should have framed the issue regarding the non-execution of agreement to sell the land by them. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent while supporting the impugned judgment and decree argued that in written statement para 2, they have admitted the execution of agreement, therefore, the question of framing any issue relating to execution of agreement to sell and advance money towards it does not arise and the trial Court rightly decreed the suit in view of Order 12 Rule 6 Sub-rule (1) of CPC which reads as under:
Order XII. Rule 6: judgment on admissions-(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length, perused the pleadings and record of the Court below. On perusal of record, we find that the Respondent/Plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 wherein he has been able to forward his case. It is also noticeable that the Defendants have filed written statement on 09.07.2003 and thereafter since the Defendants have been granted opportunities to lead evidence but they remained absent on the dates fixed by the trial Court, the trial Court was left with no option but to decide the case ex parte. So far as argument of the Appellants that the Court below did not frame issue relating to non-execution of agreement to sell the suit land by them is concerned, it is not acceptable because the Appellants/Defendants have admitted that they have taken money in advance and executed an agreement which comes under the purview of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XIV of the CPC which lays down that "issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other." Therefore, there is no need to frame issue on that aspect. However, the trial Court based on the Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Order XII of the CPC decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff. We are of view that since the Appellants/Defendants have admitted the averments relating to taking money in advance and execution of agreement to sell the suit land to the Respondent/Plaintiff, the Appellants/Defendants have no right over the suit land. Moreover, the Appellants/Defendants have been granted number of opportunities to lead evidence but they did not avail whereas the Respondent/Plaintiff has successfully been able to lead his case in the trial Court. Even at the stage of First Appeal before this Court, the Appellants/Defendants have not been able to show any prima facie case. Thus, the learned Judge has rightly decreed the suit in view of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Order XII of the CPC and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, affirming the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.08.2004 we dismiss the appeal being devoid of merit.
A decree be drawn accordingly.
