JUDGMENT : A.K. Joshi, J. 1. In this civil revision, petitioner/original defendant No.4 has challenged the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2005 passed by the Second Additional Judge, to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Katni in regular Civil Appeal No.54A/2005 reversing the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Katni on 06.02.2003 in Civil Suit No.436A/1998. The trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by present respondent No.1, but the Appellate Court has decreed plaintiff's suit. Originally second appeal was filed, but as second appeal was not maintainable, the proceedings have been converted into civil revision. 2. Originally, the present respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed suit only for declaration and mandatory and perpetual injunction that the respondents are not entitled to retain the exonerated amount of previously recovered demurrage of Rs.5031/- on pleadings that the plaintiff has not sent its goods by loading train within time and in this reference amount of demurrage of Rs.10062/- was recovered by the respondent from the plaintiff. On representation of the plaintiff, respondents exonerated the amount i.e. Rs.5031/-, but the respondents have not refunded this exonerated amount of demurrage of Rs.5031/-, to the plaintiff despite several written demand letters. Respondents are not having any right to retain this amount. Originally, this suit was valued for Rs.600/- only for above-mentioned reliefs of declaration and mandatory and perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the suit, by amendment, pleadings were inserted in the plaint that the Divisional Manager (Commercial Central Railway, Jabalpur) had intimated the plaintiff through a written letter dated 24.08.2001 that above-mentioned amount of Rs.5031/- has been adjusted towards the alleged arrears of rent which was due against the plaintiff in relation to rent of the plot. 3. The defendants by their joint written statement pleaded that before filing this suit, plaintiff has not given statutory notice under Section 106(3) of the Railways Act, 1989 to the defendants, thus this suit is not maintainable. Notice under Section 80 of the CPC was also not served on the defendants. Plaintiff has not properly valued his suit and has not paid proper Court fee on the plaint. This suit is liable to be dismissed on these legal grounds. This suit for mere declaration and injunction is not maintainable. Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Notice under Section 80 of the CPC was also not served on the defendants. Plaintiff has not properly valued his suit and has not paid proper Court fee on the plaint. This suit is liable to be dismissed on these legal grounds. This suit for mere declaration and injunction is not maintainable. Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. By amendment in written statement, pleadings were incorporated that the waived amount of demurrage has been adjusted against the dues towards the plaintiff, which have been described and detailed in the annexure which was sent to the plaintiff along with the referred letter dated 24.08.2001 by the plaintiff. Only the Railway Claims Tribunal is having jurisdiction to decide the claim for refund of any amount from the Railways and Civil Court is not having jurisdiction to decide the question of refund of the demurrage. Thus, dismissal of suit was prayed. 4. The trial Court framed issues on pleadings of the parties and recorded the evidence of plaintiff's witness Pankaj Baghel (PW-1). Before the trial Court no any witness was examined by the defendants. The trial Court recorded findings in its judgment that notice under Section 106(3) of the Railways Act was given by the plaintiff to the defendants; the plaintiff has not paid proper Court fee on the plaint, this Civil Court is not having jurisdiction to decide the claim for refund of exonerated demurrage amount, the exonerated amount of demurrage has been adjusted by the defendants towards the arrears of rent due against the plaintiff and under law defendants were entitled for adjusting this amount towards their due amount towards the plaintiff and only the Railway Claims Tribunal was having the jurisdiction and thus this suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. In regular appeal filed by the plaintiff, after Appellate Court's order, additional Court fee was paid by the plaintiff on plaint and appeal memo and the suit was valued for Rs.5031/- and the relief of refund of Rs.5031/- was also incorporated in the plaint. In regular appeal filed by the plaintiff, after Appellate Court's order, additional Court fee was paid by the plaintiff on plaint and appeal memo and the suit was valued for Rs.5031/- and the relief of refund of Rs.5031/- was also incorporated in the plaint. The appellate judge recorded its finding in judgment that as the defendants has not produced any evidence before the trial Court, it was not proved that the waived demurrage amount was adjusted by the defendants towards their due arrears of rent of plot against the plaintiff and the Civil Court was having jurisdiction to decide the suit and Railway Claims Tribunal was not having jurisdiction regarding refund of waived demurrage amount and Appellate Court decreed the suit against the defendants and Appellate Court granted decree against the defendant No.4/present petitioner to pay the waived amount of demurrage of Rs.5031/- to the plaintiff with interest. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/original defendant No.4 vehemently contended that the Appellate Court erred in granting decree only against the defendant No.4 because decree should have been granted against Union of India through its General Manager. It has also been contended that the Appellate Court had erred in reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, as only the Railway Claims Tribunal was having jurisdiction and plaintiff himself has admitted by incorporating amendments in pleadings that defendants have informed him through a written letter dated 24.08.2001 that disputed amount of Rs.5031/- has been adjusted towards the arrears of rent which was due against the plaintiff in relation to rent of plot and according to well established legal position, admitted facts in pleadings are not required to be proved by producing witness, thus the Appellate Court had erred in decreeing this suit. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/original plaintiff has supported the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court and contended that this civil revision is liable to be dismissed as Appellate Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. 7. It is well settled legal position that a fact admitted in pleadings is not required to be proved by any party. 7. It is well settled legal position that a fact admitted in pleadings is not required to be proved by any party. The plaintiff himself has pleaded in his pleading that during the pendency of the suit defendants have intimated through a letter dated 24.08.2001 that the exonerated demurrage amount of Rs.5031/- has been adjusted towards the arrears of rent in relation to any plot, which was payable by the plaintiff to the defendants. It appears from the record of the trial Court that a letter dated 19.02.1998 sent by the Central Railways to the plaintiff was on record as Annexure-A, in which various other claims made by the plaintiff against the defendants have been mentioned and their reply is also embodied in this letter and in this letter it was also mentioned that the amount of Rs.5031/- relating to waived demurrage charge and certain other amounts payable to plaintiff were adjusted in arrears of rent relating to a plot which was Rs.43013/-. In Annexure-A, various details of the plot rent with period was clearly mentioned under provision of Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, facts admitted need not to be proved. The learned Appellate Court had erred in observing that as no any witness was examined for the defendants before the trial Court, thus it was not proved that the claimed amount of Rs.5031/- has been adjusted towards the arrears of rent in relation to a plot, which was due towards the plaintiff for defendant. 8. Plaintiff's witness Pankaj Baghel (PW-1) has also deposed in para 7 of his examination-in-chief given before the trial Court that the amount of Rs.5031/- previously recovered as demurrage was directed to be refunded, but according to letter of the DRM (Commercial dated 19.02.1998) this amount has been adjusted towards the arrears of plot rent, though he also deposed that it has been illegally adjusted. In para No.13 of his cross-examination, he also admitted that a civil suit was also pending before the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Katni in relation to the amount of due rent of plot. Thus, it is clear that the learned Appellate Court had erred in recording its finding that it was not proved that the claimed amount has been adjusted towards the arrears of rent by the defendants. 9. Thus, it is clear that the learned Appellate Court had erred in recording its finding that it was not proved that the claimed amount has been adjusted towards the arrears of rent by the defendants. 9. Similarly, Railway Claims Tribunal have been established in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. According to preamble of this 1987 Act, Railway Claims Tribunal have been established for determining the claims against the Railway administration regarding loss, damage, compensation and also for the refund of fares or freight or for compensation of death or injury. According to the definition of “freight” given in the Railways Act 1989, it means the charge levied for the carriage of goods including transhipment charges, if any; and the definition of demurrage is given in Section 2(11) of Railways Act. According to which the demurrage means “the charge levied for the detention of any rolling stock after the expiry of free time, if any, allowed for such detention”. Thus, it is clear that separate forum of Railway Claims Tribunal have been established by this Statute for claim against the Railway administration, thus the learned Appellate Court has also erred in holding that the suit relating to refund of exonerated demurrage amount was maintainable before the Civil Court. It appears that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court were based on proper and legal appreciation of the facts and law. It is to be remembered that it appears that looking to this legal obstruction, originally this suit was filed only for relief of declaration and perpetual injunction. It is clear that the learned Appellate Court had committed illegality and irregularity in reversing the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. Thus, this civil revision is to be accepted. 10. Accordingly, this civil revision filed by the petitioner is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the above-mentioned Appellate Court on 30.08.2005 in Civil Appeal No.54A/2005 is set-aside and the judgment and decree passed by the above-mentioned trial Court dated 06.02.2003 passed in Civil Suit No.436A/1998 regarding dismissal of the plaintiff's suit is restored. No order as to costs.