JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. (Oral) :- Defendant-petitioner is assailing order dated 26.11.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Mohali by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby learned trial Court has directed the petitioner-defendant to appear before the Sub Registrar, Majri Tehsil on 1.12.2010 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff pursuant to agreement to sell dated 28.9.2006. 2. The brief facts of the present case inter alia are that parties have entered into an agreement to sell dated 28.9.2006, to sell the property in dispute in favour of plaintiff-respondent. As per the agreement, sale deed was to be executed on or before 21.12.2006. However, sale deed was not executed within time stipulated in the agreement, hence, as per the arbitration clause in the agreement, plaintiff-respondent intended to invoke arbitration clause. Plaintiff-respondent preferred petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Court below to restrain the defendant/petitioner herein not to transfer the suit property in favour of third party. In reply to the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, defendant-petitioner has filed written statement admitting therein the factum of execution of agreement to sell dated 28.9.2006 and further contending therein that defendant-petitioner is still ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 28.9.2006. Learned trial Court, on the basis of admission made by the defendant-petitioner has passed impugned order dated 26.11.2010 directing the defendant-petitioner to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 3. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner states that written statement and affidavit was filed by the petitioner-defendant before the trial Court admitting therein the factum of agreement to sell as well as stating therein that defendant-petitioner is ready and willing to execute the sale deed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Court was not empowered to direct the defendant-petitioner to execute the sale deed despite of admission made by defendant-petitioner in the written statement and affidavit filed. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Court was not empowered to direct the defendant-petitioner to execute the sale deed despite of admission made by defendant-petitioner in the written statement and affidavit filed. 4. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that Court should have left the parties for redressal of their grievances from the appropriate forum on the basis of so called admission of the defendant/petitioner, however, while proceeding under Section 9 of the Act Court had absolutely no jurisdiction to direct the defendant to execute sale deed, is liable to be rejected straightway. 5. Order 12 Rule 6 CPC reads as under:- “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. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.” 6. In the opinion of this Court, if admission is made before the Court at any stage of the suit or civil proceedings, Court can pass appropriate order/direction on the basis of admission. Since, defendant-petitioner is not disputing agreement to sell and has contended before the Court that defendant-petitioner is still willing and ready to execute the sale deed pursuant to the agreement to sell, hence, Court has rightly directed the defendant/petitioner to execute the sale deed. 7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case asking the plaintiff/respondent to approach appropriate forum for specific performance of the agreement to sell on the basis of admission made in a proceeding under Section 9 of the Act would be futile exercise. Every endevour should be made by every Authority- Court to take the dispute to logical end. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. Every endevour should be made by every Authority- Court to take the dispute to logical end. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Sub-Registrar to execute-register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on 4.1.2011. Dismissed. --------0.K.B.0--------