JUDGMENT : J. K. Maheshwari, J. The petitioners (defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 10) have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Sihora in Civil Suit No. 48-A/2008 dated 24-10-2009, by which the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 12, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed and the order dated 1-1-2010, by which the application filed by the petitioners under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking direction to produce the evidence of defendant No. 5 first has been rejected. 2. The plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 8 have filed a suit seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction against the petitioners and respondent No. 9 with respect to the land of Mouza Muskuri, Nazool Bandobast 687/639 Patwari Halka No. 50/78, Division Khitola, Tahsil Sihora, District Jabalpur of Khasra No. 100 area 1.084 hectare (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed land'). The said land was purchased by defendant No. 5 (respondent No. 9-Fatima Bi) by registered sale deed dated 8-2-1955. After Bandobast (settlement) Khasra number was changed as 116 and 121. It is further averred that the predecessor in title Fatima Bi has executed a sale deed on 12-7-1989 on payment of consideration of Rs.13,000/- in the name of father of plaintiffs namely Ramtahal s/o Batiram Patel and delivered the possession of the disputed land. However, the plaintiffs who are the wife and sons of Ramtahal have become absolute owners after his death. Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 have prepared a document with the forged signature of the predecessor Fatima Bi of transfer in their favour of the said land by unregistered document. It is said that the valuation of the said land while executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in the year 1989 was Rs.13,000/-. However, any unregistered document of valuation more than Rs.100/- does not confer the title by transfer as per section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. It is further said that on the basis of such a document mutation was ordered in the name of defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 without following the rules, therefore, the said mutation is invalid. It is further said that on the basis of such a document mutation was ordered in the name of defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 without following the rules, therefore, the said mutation is invalid. It is also averred that on the basis of the said mutation, sale deeds which were executed by defendants 1 to 4, in favour of defendants 6 to 10 are void ab-initio. However, no title of the disputed land can be transferred by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendants 6 to 10 by executing various sale deeds. In view of the said averments, prayer is made for declaration of title on the disputed land and to declare the sale deed, if any executed, as void and for delivery of possession of the said land in favour of the plaintiffs seeking injunction not to alienate the disputed land, by demolishing the construction, if any. 3. Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 have filed a joint written statement stating that the real owner of the disputed land is Mohd. Yunus s/o Mohd. Yusuf who had purchased the said disputed land and take over the possession in the year 1955. The said land has been transferred by him in favour of defendants 1 to 4, therefore, they are the real owners of the said property and the sale deed has been executed in favour of defendants 6 to 10, however, the plaintiffs do not have any title or right in the disputed land. It is also stated that the suit for declaration, possession is barred by time. The valuation has not been properly done and, therefore, on this count also the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Shri Vikas Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently argued that the application under Order 12, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs to admit the documents i.e. sale deeds Ex.P/1 and P/2 from defendant No. 5 after recording the evidence of the plaintiffs has been filed with a collusion and at a belated stage, which is liable to be dismissed. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Balwant Singh Gill and others vs. Gurdev Singh Brar and others, AIR 1980 Punjab and Haryana 139. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Balwant Singh Gill and others vs. Gurdev Singh Brar and others, AIR 1980 Punjab and Haryana 139. It is urged that filing such an application for admission of documents at such belated stage is against the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further urged that defendant No. 5 is in collusion with the plaintiffs who has admitted those documents in reply to such an application. The trial Court without considering such objection has allowed the prayer as made by the plaintiffs. It is also contended by him that the application filed by the defendants under section 151 to call defendant No. 5 to produce his evidence first has been rejected without any plausible reason. It is said that defendant No. 5-Fatima Bi has executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs as alleged in the suit. She has admitted the documents on filing an application by the plaintiffs, however, she is a colluding party with the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, her statement should be recorded first thereafter the remaining defendants may be allowed to lead their evidence. Therefore, the application filed by the defendants under section 151, Civil Procedure Code may be allowed and the trial Court may be directed to first record the evidence of defendant No. 5. 5. Per contra, Shri Mahendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs has drawn attention of this Court that defendant No. 5 had proceeded ex-parte, however, an application was filed on 22-4-2009 to set aside the ex-parte proceedings, which was allowed as per order dated 19-5-2009. Thereafter the plaintiffs have filed an application on 23-9-2009 under Order 12, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code for admission of the documents i.e. sale deed executed in her favour on 28-1-1957 (Ex.P/2) and the sale deed executed by her in favour of the plaintiffs on 12-7-1989 (ExP/1). In such circumstances, there is no delay to move such an application for admission of the documents. The trial Court has duly considered all the aspects while passing the order dated 24-10-2009 and rightly allowed the application. In such circumstances, there is no delay to move such an application for admission of the documents. The trial Court has duly considered all the aspects while passing the order dated 24-10-2009 and rightly allowed the application. It is further contended that the application under section 151, Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendants to produce the evidence of defendant No. 5 first has rightly been rejected because while passing the order, it is observed by the trial Court that all defendants may simultaneously file their affidavits. In view of the aforesaid, the trial Court has not committed any error to the orders impugned. 6. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that documents dated 28-11-1957 (Ex.P/2) and document dated 12-7-1989 (Ex.P/1) have been exhibited by the plaintiffs. Ex.P/2 is a document executed in favour of defendant of the disputed land while Ex.P/1 is the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiffs by defendant No. 5. It is also not in dispute that defendant No. 5 was proceeded ex-parte in the case and by moving an application, ex-parte proceedings were set aside as per order dated 19-6-2009 and in the meantime, the evidence of the plaintiffs were closed. The application under Order 12, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the plaintiffs on 23-9-2009 seeking admission of the said documents from defendant No. 5. It has been admitted by her by filing reply and affidavit before the trial Court. 7. Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers powers to the Court to pass the orders if necessary or reasonable for admission of the documents and the facts, as per Order 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. To appreciate the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant legal provisions of Order 12, Rules 2, 2A, 3A and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. "1......... 2. To appreciate the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant legal provisions of Order 12, Rules 2, 2A, 3A and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. "1......... 2. Notice to admit documents.- Either party may call upon the other party to admit within seven days from the date of service of the notice any document, saving all just exceptions; and in case of refusal or neglect to admit after such notice, the costs of proving any such document shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, whatever the result of the suit may be, unless the Court otherwise directs; and no costs of proving any document shall be allowed unless such notice is given, except where the omission to give the notice is, in the opinion of the Court, a saving of expense. 2A. Document to be deemed to be admitted if not denied after service of notice to admit documents.- (1) Every document which a party is called upon to admit, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of that party or in his reply to the notice to admit documents, shall be deemed to be admitted except as against a person under a disability: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion and for reasons to be recorded, require any document so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. (2) Where a party unreasonably neglects or refuses to admit a document after the service on him of the notice to admit documents, the Court may direct him to pay costs to the other party by way of compensation. 3A. Power of Court to record admission.- Notwithstanding that no notice to admit documents has been given under Rule 2, the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings before it, of its own motion, call upon any party to admit any document and shall, in such a case, record whether the party admits or refuses or neglects to admit such document. 4. Notice to admit facts.- Any party, may, be notice in writing, at any time not later than nine days before the day fixed for the hearing, call on any other party to admit, for the purposes of the suit only, any specific fact or facts, mentioned in such notice. 4. Notice to admit facts.- Any party, may, be notice in writing, at any time not later than nine days before the day fixed for the hearing, call on any other party to admit, for the purposes of the suit only, any specific fact or facts, mentioned in such notice. And in case of refusal or neglect to admit the same within six days after service of such notice, or within such further time as may be allowed by the Court, the costs of proving such fact or facts shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, whatever the result of the suit may be, unless the Court otherwise directs: Provided that any admission made in pursuance of such notice is to be deemed to be made only for the purposes of the particular suit and not as an admission to be used against the party on any other occasion in favour of any person other than the party giving the notice." 8. As per Order 12, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, either party may call upon the other party to admit the document within seven days from the date of service of the notice, saving all just exceptions. It has further been specified that on refusal or neglect for such admission the cost to prove any such document shall be paid by such party irrespective to the result of any suit. Under Order 12, Rule 3A, Civil Procedure Code the Court is empowered that in absence of moving an application under Rule 2 of Order 12, Civil Procedure Code at any stage of proceedings, such power may be exercised for admission of the document by the Court. 9. As per sub clause (1) of Rule 143 of Civil Courts Rules and Orders, the Court is bound to take such recourse on appropriate occasions and to pass appropriate order as per the procedure prescribed therein. Sub-clause (4) of Clause 143 emphasis the duty of the Court with the aid of Rule 3A of Order 12, Civil Procedure Code. In default of exercise of such power, the District Judge, while having inspection of the Court, may take note of the working of the Judge for the purpose of systematic and effective implementation of the provisions of law. In default of exercise of such power, the District Judge, while having inspection of the Court, may take note of the working of the Judge for the purpose of systematic and effective implementation of the provisions of law. In view of the foregoing legal position, it is apparent that invocation of the powers of the Court to record admission has been implicit under Rule 3A of Order 12, Civil Procedure Code while under Rule 2 of Order 12, Civil Procedure Code, the parties to the suit are free to take recourse on admission by issuing a notice. Emphasis has been added in the Civil Courts Rules and Orders for strict adherence of such procedure. It is to be noted here, that for the purpose of Rule 2 of Order 12, stage has not been specified while for admission of the facts under Rule 4 of Order 12, Civil Procedure Code such procedure is required to be followed not later than nine days before the date of hearing fixed by the Court. Thus, for admission of facts, the period has been specified, while for admission of the documents no such period has been specified either under Order 12, Rule 2 or 3A of Civil Procedure Code or in the Civil Courts Rules and Orders. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the admission of a document may be made by the parties at any stage, if permitted by the Court. 10. In the present case, the documents which have been exhibited, have been admitted by defendant No. 5 after setting aside the ex-parte proceedings against him on an application moved by the plaintiffs, which is allowed. However, in the opinion of this Court the trial Court while passing the order dated 24-10-2009 allowing the application under Order 12, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code of the plaintiffs has not committed any error. In fact the trial Court has rightly observed the procedure as prescribed under the law. The judgment of Balwant Singh Gill and others (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is having no application in the present case as it deals the issue of Order 12, Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code i.e. admission of facts. In fact the trial Court has rightly observed the procedure as prescribed under the law. The judgment of Balwant Singh Gill and others (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is having no application in the present case as it deals the issue of Order 12, Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code i.e. admission of facts. The language of Order 12, Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code makes it clear that the admission of the facts may be made by any party by notice in writing at any time not later than nine days before the day fixed for hearing. Thus, while admission of the facts the parties are required to issue notice for admission of the facts within nine days from the date of hearing. While under Order 12, Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code no such time has been specified. Therefore, the admission of the documents may be made at any stage of the suit. 11. Now Issue of the rejection of application filed by the defendants under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, whereby defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 have made a prayer to lead the evidence of defendant No. 5 first, requires consideration. 12. In the present case, the plaintiffs are claiming their title on the basis of the sale deed executed by defendant No. 5 on their favour. The plaintiffs' evidence has now been closed and the case has been fixed for defendants' evidence. Defendant No. 5 has admitted documents Ex.P/1 and P/2. However, if the evidence of defendant No. 5 has been adduced first, it would not cause any prejudice to either party. On perusal of the order impugned dated 1-1-2010, it is apparent that the trial Court has directed to produce the affidavits of the defendants. However, it is suffice to observe that on filing the affidavit by defendant No. 5, her cross-examination may be made first on such affidavit prior to the cross-examination on the affidavits of remaining defendants. 13. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed in view of the foregoing observations. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.