JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant Civil Revision Petition, stands, directed against the disaffirmative orders pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court., upon, an application bearing CMA No. 676 of 2017, cast under the provisions of Order 12, Rules 1 and 6 read with Order 23, Rule 1 and Section 151 of the CPC, wherein, the defendants/appellants/applicant/counter claimants, projected an intention to withdraw the counterclaim, bearing No. 51of 2008, and, also made a further echoing qua theirs admitting the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs, reared by the latter, in, Civil Suit No. 5 of 2008. 2. The afore motion was made before the learned First Appellate Court, by, the defendants/appellants/applicants, who, suffered a decree of eviction, vis-a-vis, the suit premises, (a) and, with, hence the learned trial Court hence recording disaffirmative findings, vis-a-vis, the defendants, hence, holding tenancy rights in the suit property, and, also it recorded disaffirmative findings qua the defendants acquiring title, through adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the suit premises. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved defendants/petitioners herein/counter-claimants/appellants, contends, (a) that a reading of the phraseology, occurring in Order 12, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, cannot render open a conclusion, other than, qua its provisions being available for recoursings, by any party to the lis, even at the stage, the suit, has progressed upto the appellate stage, given an appeal being, a continuation of the suit. Provisions of Order 12, Rules 1 and 6 read as under:- "1. Notice of admission of case.-Any party to a suit may give notice, by his pleading, or otherwise in writing, that he admits the truth of the whole or any part of the case of any other party. 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 (J) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced." He further contends that since, the, application echoed, a, projection, making, a simplicitor admission of the defendants/appellants/applicants/counter-claimants, (a) thereupon, the mandate of Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC, as, strived to be also invoked in the application at hand, especially, the mandate borne in sub-rule (iv) thereof, rather being in complete tandem, with, the invocation by the appellants/defendants/petitioners herein, also, of, provisions, of, Order 12, Rules 1 and 6 of the CPC, (b) and, there being no grave legal impediment in disallowing the application at hand, as, untenably done by the learned First Appellate Court. 4. The afore submission is impressive at its facade., however, it loses its sheen, (a) given any allowing, of, the application at had, rather resulting, in belittling the rigour, and, the clout of the verdict pronounced against the appellants/applicants/defendants, by the learned trial Court. The verdict pronounced by the learned trial Court, holds, clear categorical adversarial findings, rather erosive of the claim and propagation, of, the defendants/counter-claimants/petitioners herein, vis-a-vis, theirs holding any tenancy rights, vis-a-vis, the suit property, (b) and, also dispels all the vigour of their contention qua their entitlement, vis-a-vis, the suit property. The afore firm pronouncement rendered by the learned trial Court, as, strived to be subsumed by the afore concert, made by the aggrieved defendants/appellants/petitioners herein, especially at the appellate stage, (c) would upon, being countenanced, rather render nugatory, and, would also nullify, the, adjudicated rights acquired thereunder, by, the respondents/plaintiffs. Furthermore, given the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment pronounced in a case titled as R. Rathinavel Chettiar and another vs. V. Sivaraman and others, (1999) 4 SCC 89 , hence making a clear pronouncement, that, any permission for withdrawal or abandonment of any claim, by the aggrieved defeated litigant, would sequel an unfair advantage, to the party motioning the appellate court, and, also would tantamount to, all vested or substantive rights acquired through the apt verdict by the successful litigant, being hence gravely or adversely prejudiced. The afore view is also reiterated in a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered, in a case titled as K.S. Bhoopathy and others vs. Kokila and others, (2000) 5 SCC 458 , and, also in a judgment rendered in a case titled as Avenue Supermarts Private Limited vs. Nischint Bhalla and others, (2016) 15 SCC 411 , the relevant paragraph No.22 of the latter decision is extracted hereinafter:- "22. Applying the principles given in the aforementioned decisions to the facts of the present case, we find that in the order dated 10.02.2009, the learned single Judge while allowing the Notice of Motion No. 21 of 2006 had held that the highest offer made by the respondent therein (appellant before us) stood accepted by all the parties to the suit and thereafter passed certain directions to deposit the bid amount, execution of the conveyance deed etc. Thus a vested right has been created in favour of the respondent therein, that is, the present appellant and that cannot be set at naught simply by permitting the Defendant Nos. 4A, 4B and 5 to withdraw the Notice of Motion filed by them. It was for the Division Bench to decide the appeal on merits instead of permitting the withdrawal of the Notice of Motion and observing that the order of the learned single Judge passed on that Motion dated 10.02.2009 does not survive for consideration." 5. In supplement to the afore, the lack of rights, if any, of the aggrieved defendants/appellants/petitioners herein, in the suit property, when stand, firmly pronounced by the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court, (a) there from, when otherwise also may be on, a, contest in the appeal pending before the learned first appellate Court, the defendants/appellants/counter-claimants/petitioners herein, would hold no legal leverage, for, upsetting the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, (b) and, when the evidence prima faice existing on record, relied upon by the appellants/defendants, is, enjoined to display, dehors, the endeavour extantly made by the defendants/appellants, that, hence, they would yet succeed in appeal, (c) whereas, prima facie at this stage when the evidence on record may ultimately result, in the dismissal of the first appeal. Consequently, it appears that the extant endeavour, is, merely a ploy on the part of the defendants/appellants, to in its garb, theirs concerting to acquire tenancy, vis-a-vis, suit property, and, there through, hence present the plaintiffs/respondents, with, a, fait accompli , for the latter accepting them as tenants, even when, findings adversarial, vis-a-vis, the afore factum probandum, stand recorded against them, by the learned trial Court. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed. In sequel, the impugned order is affirmed and maintained. The parties are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court, on 29th March, 2019. The learned First Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as any expression on the merits of the case, and, the learned First Appellate Court shall decide the matter by remaining uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.