JUDGMENT : Kh. Nobin Singh, J. Heard Shri M. Rarry, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None is present for the respondents. 2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22-02-2016 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West in Judl. Misc. Case No. 254 of 2015, the petitioner has filed the instant Civil Revision Petition challenging its legality and correctness. 3.1. According to the petitioner, he purchased a piece of land measuring 0.24 acre under Patta No. 78/614(Old)/ 200(New) corresponding to C.S. Dag No. 1247 by way of a registered Sale-Deed executed on 12-06-2013 and consequent upon the mutation order being passed by the concerned Revenue Officials, a Jamabandi was issued in his favour. In order to develop the said land, the petitioner started construction of the boundary wall and while the work of construction was going on, the respondents started raising objections including a threat being laid on the petitioner and his employees with direct consequences which compelled the petitioner to file a suit being O.S. No. 63 of 2014 for declaration and permanent injunction before the Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West on 18-11-2014 and in response thereto, the respondents filed a Written Statement-cum-Counter Claim dated 19-12-2014 wherein the respondents admitted that the petitioner is the owner of the said land by way of transferring of ownership through a Sale-Deed and out of the total area of 0.24 acre, an area of 0.1561 acre remains in the hands of the petitioner after the acquisition of 0.0839 acre having been made by the Government. 3.2. The petitioner filed an application being Judl. Misc. Case No. 254 of 2015 under Order 12, Rule 6 read with Order 15, Rule 1 of the CPC praying for pronouncement of a judgment in view of the admissions made by the respondents in their pleadings and for drawing up a decree thereof and in response thereto, the respondents filed a reply on 06-05-2015 raising objections to the prayer sought for by the petitioner. After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West dismissed the said Juld. Misc. Case No. 254 of 2015 and being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that the Ld. After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West dismissed the said Juld. Misc. Case No. 254 of 2015 and being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that the Ld. Civil Judge had committed error of law and procedural irregularity when it failed to consider the admissions made by the respondents and its judgment and order, impugned herein, is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. 4. In the plaint filed by the petitioner, it is averred that the petitioner had acquired the suit land measuring 0.24 acre by way of a registered Sale-Deed executed on 12-06-2013 and consequent upon the registration of the Sale-Deed, a mutation order was passed by the concerned Revenue Officials whereby the name of the petitioner was recorded as the Pattadar and a Jamabandi was issued in his favour. The relevant para 5(a), 6 and 7 are reproduced herein-below: "5(a) C.S. Dag No. 1247, by way of a duly registered Sale-Deed executed on 12-06-2013 being registered in Book No. 1, Volume No. 11 of 2013, Page No. 267/273 being No. 2037. 6. That, consequent upon the registration of the Sale-Deed, the Mutation Order has been passed by the concerned Revenue Officials in the Land Records where the name of the Plaintiff has been recorded as recorded pattadar in respect of the 3 (three) homestead land as mentioned- above. 7. That, the concerned Revenue Authorities have accordingly issued 3 (three) separate Jamabandis/Pattas and Dag-Chithas in favour of the Plaintiff." In the written statement filed by the respondents, it is stated that the suit land which initially belonged to one, Shri Laishram Chandra Singh, came ultimately into the hands of the Shri Laithangbam Dhiren Singh, by way of a gift, who transferred the same to the petitioner under a registered Sale- Deed dated 14-06-2013, on the basis of which the name of the petitioner was recorded in the Jamabandi vide order dated 24-06-2013 passed by the SDO/IW(P). After a portion of the suit land being an area of 0.0839 acre having been acquired by the Government vide award dated 14-10-2013, the area of the suit land is reduced to 0.1561 acre. After a portion of the suit land being an area of 0.0839 acre having been acquired by the Government vide award dated 14-10-2013, the area of the suit land is reduced to 0.1561 acre. Since Shri L. Dhiren Singh had no right or title over the suit land, the Sale-Deed dated 14-06-2013 executed by him is void and consequently, the petitioner had no right or title over the suit land. The relevant paras of the written statement are given as under: "1.8 That the said L. Dhiren Singh further transfer the land to the Plaintiff under a registered Sale Deed bearing Regd. No. 2037 of 2013 dated 14-06-2013 and on the basis of the sale deed the name of the Plaintiff is recorded in the Jamabandi vide Order dated 24-06- 2013 passed by the SDC/IW(P) in Mut. Case No. 546/SDC/IW(P)/2013. 1.12 That it is a fact that consequent upon the acquisition of 0.0839 acre of land out of the said Patta land, the area of the said land is reduced to (0.2400 - 0.0839) = 0.1561 acre. In other words with effect from 12-07-2010 i.e., from the date on which the land was acquired for widening of NH 150, the area of the said land has been reduced to 0.1561 acre and it does not comprise 0.24 acre. This remaining portion of the said Patta land measuring 0.1561 acre covered by C.S. Dag No. 1247 under Patta No. 78/614 (Old)/200 (New) is more fully described in Schedule "Y" appended to this Written Statement. 1.13 That in the circumstances, Shri A. Manihar Singh has no authority to execute a sale deed and sold out 0.24 acre of land i.e., the said Patta land to Shri L. Dhiren Singh. In other words, the sale deed bearing Registration No. 615(V)/2012 dated 16-06-2012 is void ab-initio and the purchaser Shri L. Dhiren Singh has no right or title over the said Patta land. Similarly the sale deed bearing Registration No. 2037 of 2013 dated 14-06-2013 registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar (HQ), Imphal, Manipur at Lamphelpat thereby transferring the said Patta land to the Plaintiff is also void and the Plaintiff has no right or title upon the said Patta land. 3. Similarly the sale deed bearing Registration No. 2037 of 2013 dated 14-06-2013 registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar (HQ), Imphal, Manipur at Lamphelpat thereby transferring the said Patta land to the Plaintiff is also void and the Plaintiff has no right or title upon the said Patta land. 3. That in reply to Para No. 3 to 7 of the Plaint, the Defendants denies the statement that the Plaintiff purchased or acquired the land under Patta No. 78/614(Old)/200(New) covered by C.S. Dag No. 1247 measuring 0.24 acre of Village No. 78 Changagei, Imphal West District, Manipur. It is also not true that the Plaintiff acquired ownership upon the said Patta land. Now, the Defendants are challenging the ownership of the Plaintiff upon the said Patta land. It is further submitted that the Registered Sale Deed No. 2037 of 2013 is void and the mutation order is respect of the said Patta land is also illegal and not enforceable in the eye of law. Further the Jamabandi Patta of the said Patta land showing the area of 0.24 acre is not correct and the same is not maintainable." In the recast plaint filed on 19-01-2016, it has been stated that the acquisition proceeding was initiated when the suit land was in the name of Shri A. Manihar Singh and the award dated 14-10-2013 was passed after the Sale-Deed dated 12-06-2013 having been registered in favour of the petitioner to whom the payment of compensation was made on 13-03-2014. After a portion of the suit land being acquired and possessed by the Government, an area of only 0.1561 acre remains in respect of the Suit land. But a certified copy of the Jamabandi issued on 24-04-2015 by the SDC/IW(P) continued to show the uncorrected area of 0.24 acre. After a portion of the suit land being acquired and possessed by the Government, an area of only 0.1561 acre remains in respect of the Suit land. But a certified copy of the Jamabandi issued on 24-04-2015 by the SDC/IW(P) continued to show the uncorrected area of 0.24 acre. The prayer (a) in the plaint is as under: (a) A decree of Declaration declaring the Plaintiff to be the absolute owner and in possession of the homestead land being Patta No. 78/614 (Old), 200 (New) and covered by C.S. Dag No. 1247 which is situated in Village No. 78-Changagei, Imphal West District, Patsoi Sub-Division, Manipur and which measured a total area of 0.24 acres and after Government of Manipur acquiring an area of 0.0839 acres out of 0.24 acres, while making the final payment of land compensation to the Plaintiff on 13-03-2014, and now finally having an area of 0.1561 acres (Marked as Schedule "A") 5. The Judl. Misc. Case No. 254 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner under Order 15, Rule 1 read with Order 12, Rule 6 and Section 151 of the CPC praying for a judgment on the admissions made by the respondents and for drawing a decree thereof on the ground that in the Suit being O.S No. 67 of 2014 filed by the respondents on 26-11-2014 claiming relief of easementary rights against the petitioner, they have admitted that the petitioner is the owner of the suit land and therefore, there is no issue left to be settled between the parties as regards the ownership of the suit land. In the written objection filed by the respondents, it has been stated that out of the land under C.S Dag No. 1247, only a portion of 0.24 acre has been purchased by the petitioner and since a portion out of 0.24 acre has been acquired by the Government, the actual area entitled to by petitioner is only 0.1561 acre. The area covered by C.S. Dag No. 1247 is bigger than 0.24 acre and therefore, the petitioner is trying to encroach upon the remaining area. The area covered by C.S. Dag No. 1247 is bigger than 0.24 acre and therefore, the petitioner is trying to encroach upon the remaining area. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal west, after having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, was of the view that the provisions of Order 15, Rule 1 read with Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC were not attracted to the present case and accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner was rejected. 6. The Order 12, Rule 6 of the CPC which is relevant for the present case 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 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." Under the provisions of this Order 12, Rule 6, the court is empowered to pass a judgment and a decree thereof, in respect of admitted claims at any stage of the Suit. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 279 , 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 to. Such a judgment can be passed by the court on an admission made either in writing or oral. As regards the words "pleading or otherwise", the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karam Kapahi & ors. v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & anr., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 753 observed that it had expressed the approval of the interpretation of Order 12, Rule 6 by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shikharchand v. Bari Bai, AIR 1974 MP 75 wherein G.P Singh, J. observed ". v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & anr., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 753 observed that it had expressed the approval of the interpretation of Order 12, Rule 6 by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shikharchand v. Bari Bai, AIR 1974 MP 75 wherein G.P Singh, J. observed ". Rule 6 Order 12, in my opinion must bear the same construction as was put upon the corresponding English rule by Sargant, J. The words 'either on the pleadings or otherwise' in Rule 6 enable us not only to see the admissions made in pleadings or under Rules 1 to 4 of the same order but also admissions made elsewhere during the trial." In Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd v. Jasbir Singh Chadha & anr., reported in (2010) 6 SCC 601 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision, reiterated that before a court can act under Order 12, Rule 6 CPC, the admission must be clear and unambiguous. 7. On perusal of the plaint in Suit No. 67 of 2014 filed by the respondents and others, it is seen that the respondents have stated that they are using an approach road that connects to the Tidim Road through the public lane under Dag No. 1246 measuring 0.19 acre and the public lane running through Dag No. 1247 having a wide of 30 ft. and length of 145 ft. hereinafter referred to as second portion. It is further stated that on enquiry, they came to know that the petitioner purchased from Shri L. Dhiren Singh 0.24 acre of land under Dag No. 1247 under a registered Sale-Deed dated 12-06-2013 and taking advantage of it, he took up a plan to occupy the said second portion. Moreover, as has been stated herein above, in their written objection filed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 254 of 2015, the respondents have stated that out of the land under C.S. Dag No. 1247, only a portion of 0.24 acre has been purchased by the petitioner and since a portion out of 0.24 acre having been acquired by the Government, the actual area entitled to by petitioner is only 0.1561 acre. Misc. Case No. 254 of 2015, the respondents have stated that out of the land under C.S. Dag No. 1247, only a portion of 0.24 acre has been purchased by the petitioner and since a portion out of 0.24 acre having been acquired by the Government, the actual area entitled to by petitioner is only 0.1561 acre. On the contrary, it is nowhere stated specifically in their written statement that the petitioner is the owner of the suit land and all that they have stated is that Shri L. Dhiren Singh transferred the suit land to the petitioner under a registered Sale-Deed dated 14-06-2013 but Since Shri L. Dhiren Singh had no right or title over the suit land, the Sale-Deed dated 14-06-2013 executed by him is void and consequently, the petitioner had no right or title over the suit land. The question that arises for consideration, is as to whether these contrary stands of the respondents can be said to have amounted to admissions under the provisions of the Order 12, Rule 6 of the CPC. The answer appears to be in the negative for the reason that the alleged admissions are not clear and unambiguous except that the petitioner purchased the suit land under a registered Sale-Deed. Even the date of Sale-Deed is different because according to the petitioner, the date of Sale- Deed is 12-06-2013, while the respondents talked about the Sale-Deed being executed on 14-06-2013. The name of the person from whom the petitioner purchased the suit land is also not clear because the same is not disclosed in the recast plaint wherein it is stated that the compensation was paid to him after Shri A. Manihar Singh submitted a letter dated 23-10-2013 to the District Collector, Imphal West informing that the petitioner is the land owner. On the other hand, the respondents in their written statement have stated that Shri L. Dhiren Singh transferred the suit land to the petitioner by way of a registered Sale-Deed dated 14-06-2013. In Vijay Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Gupta, reported in AIR 2007 Del. On the other hand, the respondents in their written statement have stated that Shri L. Dhiren Singh transferred the suit land to the petitioner by way of a registered Sale-Deed dated 14-06-2013. In Vijay Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Gupta, reported in AIR 2007 Del. 166 , the High Court of Delhi has held that a pleading or a document has to be construed as a whole to see its effect and one or two lines cannot be permitted to be taken out of context and used as an admission of a party entitling the other for passing of a judgment upon admission. It is an accepted norm of reading and interpretation of reading that they must be read in entirety or at least in a manner which would not frustrate the very claim of the party raised in the pleadings. This court does endorse it and if the written statement is read as a whole, it can be seen that the only admission made by the respondents is that the petitioner purchased the suit land under a Sale-Deed. That is all and not beyond that. Similar is the case with reading of the plaint in Suit No. 67 of 2014 filed by the respondents. There is no clear and unequivocal admission as regards the ownership of the suit land and in other words, the admission can be said to be conditional in view of their statement that the Sale-Deed dated 14-06-2013 is void. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, Shri M. Rarry, the learned counsel appearing for him has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raveesh Chand Jain v. Raj Rani Jain, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 428 wherein the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant-defendant who is her son, for recovery of possession and damages contending that she had purchased the suit property out of her own fund and that she is the absolute owner. The appellant-defendant opposed the suit contending that the suit property was a Hindu Undivided Family property. During the pendency of the said suit, an application under Order 12, Rule 6 came to be filed by the respondent-plaintiff praying for a judgment on the ground that a suit for partition on the ground that the suit property was a HUF property, had already been dismissed. During the pendency of the said suit, an application under Order 12, Rule 6 came to be filed by the respondent-plaintiff praying for a judgment on the ground that a suit for partition on the ground that the suit property was a HUF property, had already been dismissed. The Trial court dismissed the application and a revision petition filed against it, was allowed by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the judgment and order of the High Court. The facts of the said case are different from that of the present case and moreover, the said Suit No. 67 of 2014 had not been dismissed on merit and therefore, the law laid down therein will not apply to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, it may not be proper and appropriate for the court to pass a judgment holding that the petitioner is the owner of the suit land when the legality and correctness of the Sale-Deed dated 14-06-2013 is being questioned by the respondents. The admission made by the respondents cannot be said to be clear and unambiguous so as to attract the provisions of Order 12, Rule 6 of CPC. In view of the above, this court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order and hence, no interference is called for. 8. For the reasons stated herein above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.