JUDGMENT Heard Shri K.B. Joshi learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admision. This is plaintiff's appeal under O. 43, R. 1 (R) of C.P.C. arising out of the order dt. 22.4.92 passed by the Districts Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 3-A/92. The case as pleaded and placed by the plaintiff appellant has been noted in sufficient details by the learned trial Judge in para 2 of the impugned order. The plaintiff's application for interim injunction order O. 39, R. 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Sec.151 C.P.C. stands dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order. Shri Joshi learned counsel for the appellant while making his submission in one breath stated that the plaintiff did not rely on right of pre-emption, a right which is no longer available after the coming into force of the Constitution. Shri Joshi, however, submitted that ever since the plaintiff's inductment as a tenant in the suit premises there was an oral agreement one related to right of sub-letting and the other plaintiff's right of pre-emption in the tenant the suit house was required to be sold. An oral agreement of sub-letting on the face of it, cannot form the basis of legally enforceable right. Similarly the right of pre-emption can also not afford an obligation in favour of the plaintiff and against the respondent, which can be said to be enforceable at law. The trial Court has rightly observed that apart from the affidavit of one Tikamdas, there is no other document whatsoever, to prima facie support the plaintiff-appellant's right of pre-emption as claimed by him. The other documents filed by the plaintiff have also been considered by the trial Court and it has been rightly observed that recitals contained in these documents are not binding on the defendant. These documents contained declaration made by the plaintiff to his tenant, date on which thee rent notes were executed. It is nothing but an admission by the plaintiff in his own favour and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own admission. Learned counsel on being asked at pains to point out any error in the reasoning of the trial Court. Going through the order as a whole this appeal deserves to be summarily dismissed and is accordingly dismissed without notice to the opposite party.