JUDGMENT Khundkar, J. - This is an application for judgment upon admission under Or. 12, r. 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The short facts, in so far as they are material, are as follows :-- The Plaintiff instituted the suit against three Defendants for money lent and advanced. The Defendants are No. 1 Brahma Brata Roy, No. 2 Kalyan Brata Roy and No. 3 Karun Brata Roy. It is not very clear from the plaint what exactly is the averment regarding the individual or individuals to whom the money lent was actually paid. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is stated, Pursuant to the agreement aforesaid the Plaintiff lent and advanced to the Defendants on the 20th September, 1945, the sum of Rs. 2,800 and the Defendants utilised the same for the purpose of their said venture. In paragraph 4 it is stated: The Defendants have failed and neglected to repay the Plaintiff the sum of Rs. 2,800 . . . . From the above paragraph one is left to gather the impression that the advance was made to the three Defendants jointly, and that the Plaintiff's claim against them is one which rests upon an allegation of joint and several liability. 2. In his written statement the Defendant No. 2, Kalyan Brata Roy, alleged that the loan was made by the Plaintiff only to him personally, and he admitted that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover upon this basis a sum of Rs. 2,400. The relevant paragraphs of this Defendant's written statement are as follows:-- Paragraph 2:-- This Defendant further states that the said loan of Rs. 2,800 advanced by the Plaintiff was a personal loan to this Defendant only which this Defendant was always ready and willing to re-pay. Paragraph 5:-- This Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of the plaint and denies the particulars of claim therein. After giving credit for Rs. 400 paid to the Plaintiff by this Defendant on the first day of November, 1945, the Plaintiff is only entitled to Rs. 2,400 with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent. per annum from the 1st day of October 1945. 3. In the present application the Plaintiff is not seeking to have the suit completely disposed of by a judgment upon this admission. 2,400 with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent. per annum from the 1st day of October 1945. 3. In the present application the Plaintiff is not seeking to have the suit completely disposed of by a judgment upon this admission. He wishes to take advantage of the admission in so far as it may enable him to obtain, by means of the present application, realisation of a sum of Rs. 2.400 from Defendant No. 2, and at the same time he wishes to be free to proceed with the suit for the recovery not only of the balance of Rs. 400 from the Defendant Kalyan Brata, but of the entire amount of his claim in the suit from the other two Defendants Brahma Brata Roy and Karun Brata Roy. This is apparent from the prayer of the present petition which is in these terms:-- Your Petitioner prays your Lordship for (a) Judgment against the Defendant Karun Brata Roy on his said admission for Rs. 2,400 with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the 1st of October, 1945, with leave to your Petitioner to proceed with this suit against him for the Test of your Petitioner's claim in suit, and with further leave to proceed with this suit against the other Defendants Brahma Brata Roy and Kalyan Brata Roy for the whole of the claim in this suit. 4. From what has been said above it is more than reasonably clear that the Plaintiff is seeking to split the admission made by the Defendant No. 2, so as to take advantage of one part of it and to repudiate the other part. The admission of this Defendant in so far as it is an admission of the Plaintiff's claim in the suit is a strictly conditional one. The Defendant No. 2 is saying that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 2.400 but subject to this, viz., that he is entitled to receive it from this Defendant and not from any of the others. The Plaintiff seeks to avail himself of the admission of liability while ignoring the condition thereof although the condition is an essential part of the admission itself. 5. 2.400 but subject to this, viz., that he is entitled to receive it from this Defendant and not from any of the others. The Plaintiff seeks to avail himself of the admission of liability while ignoring the condition thereof although the condition is an essential part of the admission itself. 5. The splitting up of admissions in pleadings, so as to ignore conditions contained therein, has been deprecated by the highest authority [see Motabhoy Mulla Essabhoy v. Mulji Haridas L. R. 42 I. A. 103 at p. 109: s. c. 19 C. W. N. 713 (1915)]. At page 109, Lord Dunedin in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee stated as follows:-- But an admission in pleading cannot be so dissected, and if it is made subject to a condition it must either be accepted subject to the condition or not accepted at all. On behalf of the Petitioner reliance has been placed upon the following cases:--Premsuk Das Assaram v. Udairam Gungabux 22 C. W. N. 204 (1917), Koramall Ramballav v. Mongilal Dalimchand 23 C. W. N. 1017 (1919) and Abdul Rahaman v. Parbati Debi A. I. R. [1923] Lah. 403. None of these cases has any bearing upon the precise question which has arisen in this application, for in those cases the Court was not called upon to deal with a strictly conditional admission such as that which arises for consideration in the present case. It is well settled that judgments upon admission under Or. 12, r. 6 are matters of discretion, and what may well be done in one case may be objectionable in another. A judgment upon admission under the provisions of Or. 12, r. 6 is not a matter of right, and where the case involves, as it does here, questions which cannot be conveniently disposed of on a motion under this rule, the Court should in the exercise of its discretion refuse the motion. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs.