ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. Petitioner/plaintiff takes exception to order dated 14.11.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 15A/2011 whereby the trial Court has rejected the application under Order 12 rule 6 CPC filed by the petitioner for final decision on the basis of the pleadings, on the findings that since the proceedings of the civil suit are stayed under section 10 CPC, the application cannot be considered. The precise reasons given by the trial Court are as follows : ^^;gka ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd oRkZeku nkok U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 16-9-2011 ls /kkjk 10 lh-ih-lh- ds v/khu LVs gS ftlls Hkh iwoZorhZ okn ds fujkdj.k ls iwoZ rF;kRed vk/kkj ij bl nkos dks fu.khZr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gksxkA vr% mijksDr fu"d"kZ ds lkFk oknh }kjk izLrqr fopkjk/khu vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 3. Rule 6 of Order 12 CPC provides that : “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.” 4. Placing reliance on the decision in Pukhraj D. Jain and others v. G. Gopalkrishna [ (2004) 7 SCC 251 ], it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that section 10 CPC enacts the procedure and the decree passed in contravention thereof being not a nullity and the application under Order 12 rule 6 CPC is to be decided purely on legal points, the trial Court committed jurisdictional error in declining to consider the application. 5. In Pukhraj D. Jain and others (supra). It is held : “4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court is wholly erroneous in law and must be set aside. 5. In Pukhraj D. Jain and others (supra). It is held : “4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court is wholly erroneous in law and must be set aside. The proceedings in the trial of a suit have to be conducted in accordance with provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. section 10 CPC no doubt lays down that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed. However, mere filing of an application under section 10 CPC does not in any manner put an embargo on the power of the Court to examine the merits of the matter. The object of the section is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The section enacts merely a rule of procedure and a decree passed in contravention thereof is not a nullity. It is not for a litigant to dictate to the Court as to how the proceedings should be conducted, it is for the Court to decide what will be the best course to be adopted for expeditious disposal of the case. In a given case the stay of proceedings of later suit may be necessary in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and harassment of parties. However, where subsequently instituted suit can be decided on purely legal points without taking evidence, it is always open to the Court to decide the relevant issues and not to keep the suit pending which has been instituted with an oblique motive and to cause harassment to the other side.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. However, where subsequently instituted suit can be decided on purely legal points without taking evidence, it is always open to the Court to decide the relevant issues and not to keep the suit pending which has been instituted with an oblique motive and to cause harassment to the other side.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Evidently, rule 6 of Order 12 CPC confers a jurisdiction on the Court 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 admissions of facts made either in the pleadings or otherwise. 7. The impugned order when is tested on the anvil of above analysis cannot be given stamp of approval. Consequently, it is set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court with a direction to consider the application under Order 12 rule 6 CPC on its own merit. 8. The petition is disposed of finally in above terms. No costs.