JUDGMENT : Curiously enough, even after recording the observations of this Court in an order dated 23rd February, 2016 passed in CO 204 of 2014, the Trial Court proceed to dismiss the application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. In a partition suit, an application for judgment on admission was taken out by the plaintiff in preliminary form as the shares of the parties are not disputed. The plaint contains three schedules. 3. When the matter reached to this Court in CO 204 of 2014, there is a categorical observation recorded therein that the affidavit filed by the defendant/opposite party contains a clear admission as to the extent of her share, which is fifty per cent in respect of the properties described in Schedules A and C to the plaint. It is further observed that there is a dispute over the properties described in Schedule B to the plaint. 4. There is no hesitation in my mind that such observation is explicit clear and unequivocal in the sense that there is a clear admission to the extent of fifty per cent share in respect of the properties described in Schedules A and C. There is no impediment on the part of the Court in allowing the application partly to the extent of an admission and may relegate the parties to trial in respect of the remaining. There was no occasion to dismiss the application in toto even after recording the admission made in respect of some of the properties. The order impugned, therefore, suffers from illegality and/or infirmity and cannot be sustained. The impugned order is, thus, set aside. 5. There shall be a judgment on admission to the extent of fifty per cent share of the parties in respect of the properties described in Schedules A and C. 6. So far as properties described in Schedule B to the plaint is concerned, the parties are not ad idem, as according to the opposite party the said property is not joint. 7. However, Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits, on instruction, that his client is giving up his claim over the B Schedule property and is not claiming any relief in respect thereof. 8. 7. However, Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits, on instruction, that his client is giving up his claim over the B Schedule property and is not claiming any relief in respect thereof. 8. In view thereof, let a preliminary decree be drawn up on the basis of the admission as recorded herein above in respect of the properties described in Schedules A and C. 9. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. 10. However, there shall be no order as to costs.