JUDGMENT : Despite repeated calls, no one appears for the petitioner. Mr. K. N. Choubey, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of the respondent no.1. 2. Perused the materials on record. 3. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 14.03.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur in Title Suit No. 661 of 2010 whereby the petition dated 12.03.2018 filed by the respondent 1st set under Order XII, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) has been allowed. 4. Order XII, Rule 6(1) of the CPC provides that 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. 5. Sub-rule (2) of aforesaid Order XII, Rule 6 of the CPC provides that 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. 6. The provisions prescribed under Order XII, Rule 6(2) of the CPC are identical to Order XX, Rule 7 of the CPC. The judgment in terms of Order XII, Rule 6 of the CPC can be challenged only by way of an appeal and not by way of an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In that view of the matter, the application is dismissed as not maintainable. 8. The interim order dated 10.08.2018 stands vacated.