Judgment :- Heard both the counsel. 2. This petition is filed to review the order, dated 4.4.2008 passed by this court in C.R.P. No. 5288/2007. 3. The suit schedule property is plot no. 4 admeasuring 200 sq. yards, which is equivalent to 167-20 sq. meters in Sy. No. 503/A, situate at Attapur, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District with specific boundaries. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 1119/2003 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for permanent injunction over the suit schedule property. 5. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the 1st plaintiff is the mother of plaintiffs 2 to 5 and she has purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed on 20.4.2001 from Mohd. Irshad and his wife Mrs. Kousar Afshan and has been in possession over the suit schedule property. Alleging that the 1st defendant is trying to grab the land without any manner of right and that the 2nd defendant from whom the 1st defendant purchased the property, has no right to sell the property to third parties, the plaintiff filed the suit for the above said relief. 6. The defendant in the written statement while denying the plaint averments and claiming that he purchased the open plot in Sy. No. 503/A admeasuring 180 sq. yards at Attapur Village, Rangendra Nagar under a registered sale deed dated 24.12.2002 from one B. Saraladevi through her registered power of attorney holder Mahmood Mohiuddin s/o Mohsin Md. Ibrahim and that he is in possession and that the plaintiffs were never in possession, sought to dismiss the suit. 7. Based on the above pleadings, appropriate issues were framed and the trial has commenced and at the stage of closing of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs, the defendant no. 1 filed the I.A. (Sr). No. 8625/1/2007 in O.S. No. 1119/2003 under Order 10, Rule 1 read with Order 12, Rule 6 and Section 151 C.P.C. to ascertain the admissions made by the plaintiffs in the cross-examination of P. Ws-1 and 3 in respect of the suit claim and pass judgment on such admission by dismissing the suit. 8. 1 filed the I.A. (Sr). No. 8625/1/2007 in O.S. No. 1119/2003 under Order 10, Rule 1 read with Order 12, Rule 6 and Section 151 C.P.C. to ascertain the admissions made by the plaintiffs in the cross-examination of P. Ws-1 and 3 in respect of the suit claim and pass judgment on such admission by dismissing the suit. 8. By docket order dated 1.11.2007 the court below, on the ground that as the application was filed after leading of substantial evidence and not on the first hearing of the suit and further the admissions referred to under Order 12 Rule 6 are the admissions obtained in form 10 in Appendix-C after issuing notice and further as the trial has commenced, rejected the petition filed by the defendant no. 1. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant no. 1 preferred revision before this court in 5288/2007. 9. The plaintiffs 1 to 5 filed counter and while stating that the suit schedule property and the property purchased by the 1st defendant are different and that D.W.1 has filed affidavit in chief and that there are no admissions in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and only in order to obstruct the trial, the defendant no. 1 has filed the present application and revision; sought to dismiss the revision. 10. This court considering the relief sought for in the suit and the stage of the suit and further concurring the view expressed by the court below in the order dated 1.11.2007, dismissed the revision. For review of the said order, the defendant no. 1 filed the present review petition. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant no. 1 vehemently contended that the trial court has not considered the effect of Order 10 Rule 1 and Order 12 Rule 6 of C.P.C. and under Order 10 Rule 1 of C.P.C. the court, at the first hearing of the suit, shall ascertain each party or his pleader whether he admits or denies such allegation of fact as are made in the plaint or written statement and record such admissions and denials and further the court is empowered to pass judgment based on admissions under order 12 Rule 6 of C.P.C. He submitted that the court below in the impugned order misconstrued the clause ‘first hearing of the suit’ appearing in Order 10 Rule 1 of C.P.C. as the first appearance of the party. He contended that ‘first hearing of the suit has to be construed when the suit is coming up for settlement of issues or when the evidence is taken. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Sham Lal v. Atma Nand Jain Sabha (Regd.) Dal Bazar ( AIR 1987 SC 197 ) and Ved Prakash v. Vishwa Mohan ( AIR 1982 SC 816 . He further submitted that under Order 12 Rule 6 of C.P.C., the court is empowered to pass judgment at any state even if substantial evidence is adduced, based on the admissions. As the trial court has not considered the provisions under C.P.C., he filed the revision and this court in a verbatim manner, confirmed the said order without independently appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner/defendant no. 1. Hence the order dated 4.4.2008 requires to be reviewed. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants contended that the jurisdiction of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. is available only when there is any apparent error on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. In the present case, this court by considering the stage of the suit, as substantial evidence has been adduced and that the trial is in progress, dismissed the revision and there are no grounds to review the order passed by this court and hence sought to dismiss the review petition. 13. The counsel for the petitioner/defendant no. 1 mainly relied on Order 10 Rule 1 and Order 12 Rule 6 of C.P.C. and contended that there are admissions in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 and based on such admissions, sought to pass judgment. It is necessary to note Rule 1 of Order 10 of C.P.C. before proceeding further as under: 1. Ascertainment whether allegations in pleadings are admitted or denied– At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall ascertain from each party or his pleader whether he admits or denies such allegations of facts as are made in the plaint or written statement (if any) of the opposite party, and as are not expressly or by necessary implication admitted or denied by the party against whom they are made. The Court shall record such admissions and denials. 14. The Court shall record such admissions and denials. 14. From a reading of the above provision it is clear that the court shall at first hearing of the suit, ascertain from each party or his pleading whether he admits or denies such allegations of facts as are made in the plaint or written statement and as are not expressly or by necessary implication admitted or denied by the party against whom they are made. There cannot be any dispute that the starting words occurring in Rule 1 that “at the first hearing of the suit” would mean, the day on which the court applies its mind to the case either for framing issues or for taking evidence and the judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner are this effect. But the other question that has to be examined is when such admissions or denials have to be obtained. 15. A close reading of the above provision would amply make it clear that the ascertainment of the court with regard to admissions or denials are to be made only when they are not expressly or by necessary implication admitted or denied. In other words, such ascertainment should be made when averments made and allegations leveled in the pleadings are neither admitted nor denied by the party against whom they have been made. In the present case, the averments of both the parties are specific and there is no ambiguity and each party is denying the title of the other. In such circumstances, the ascertainment of the court with regard to their stand would not arise. In the judgment reported in Balmiki Singh v. Mathura Prasad (AIR 1968 Allahabad 259) a learned single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad while considering the Rules 1 and 2 of Order 10, held as under, with regard to Rule 1: “8. It will be evident that this rule relates only to ascertainment by statement of the parties themselves or their pleaders whether allegations in the pleadings were admitted or denied by them. It will also be clear from rule 1 that this ascertainment is to be made by the Court only when the allegations are not expressly or by necessary implication are admitted or denied by the party against whom they are made.” 16. It will also be clear from rule 1 that this ascertainment is to be made by the Court only when the allegations are not expressly or by necessary implication are admitted or denied by the party against whom they are made.” 16. Coming to the facts of the present case, the plaintiffs’ case is that the 1st plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from one Mohd. Irshad and his wife Mrs. Kousar Afshan under a registered sale deed dated 20.4.2001 and the claim of the 1st defendant is that he purchased the open plot in Sy. No. 503/A admeasuring 180 Sq. yards at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District under registered sale deed dated 24.12.2002 and whether the suit schedule property and the property purchased by the defendant no. 1 is one and the same or whether there is any discrepancy and even if both are different, what is the effect of alleged interference by the defendant no. 1 into the suit schedule property and the issues related to it, have to be gone into during trial. Further the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded title and denied the title set up by the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 on the other hand while denying the tile of the plaintiffs, pleaded title in respect of certain property. The admissions pleaded by the defendant no. 1 in the evidence of P. Ws 1 and 3 are not clear and further it is well settled that the entire evidence has to be read as a whole and fragmented parts or reading stray sentences, in isolation, is not permissible under law. The admission or denial shall be specific and shall be unambiguous and then only the judgment can be passed at any stage as contemplated under Order 12 Rule 6. For better appreciation Rule 6 of Order 12 is extracted as under: 6. Judgment on admissions: (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleadings 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. 17. 17. A reading of the above provision would make it clear that 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, make judgment. A further reading of the provision would make it clear that by use of the word ‘may’ in the rule, indicates that such rule is only an enabling and permissive provision, which means that the same has to be exercised by using discretion and having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any straitjacket formula. The Apex Court in the decision reported in Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India AIR 2000 SC 2740 held that the Rule 6 of Order 12 applies only when there is clear admission of facts in face of which it is impossible for party making such admission to succeed. The relevant portion is extracted as under: “12. As to the object of the order XII, Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rule, it is stated that “where a claim is admitted, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled.” We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed.” 18. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed.” 18. From a combined reading of Order 10 Rule 1 and Rule 6 of Order 12 of C.P.C. it is clear that the court can ascertain the admissions as contemplated under Rule 1 of Order 10 only when averments made and allegations leveled in the pleadings are neither admitted nor denied by the party against whom they have been made. And if the admissions are plain and it is impossible for party making such admission to succeed, then the court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction can pass the judgment as envisaged under Order 12 Rule, 6. 19. In the present case, as already noted above, there are no clear admissions and the plaintiffs have clearly pleaded their title and denied the title of the defendant no. 1 and fragmented statements in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 cannot be taken as admissions and further the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs is closed and the defendant no. 1 also filed affidavit evidence and thus substantial evidence has been adduced and there is no clear admissions and further trial is in progress and in these circumstances, the court below is justified in not exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Rule 6 of Order 12 of C.P.C. 20. In the impugned order, which is sought to be reviewed, this court though not in elaborate manner, considering that substantial evidence has been lead and the trial is in progress, has dismissed the revision petition, concurring with the view expressed by the trial court. 21. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, I do not find any patent error or any sufficient reason, to review the order dated 4.4.2008 and the review petition is dismissed. It is made clear the court below shall dispose of the suit on its merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. No costs.