JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.M. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title Suit No. 160/2011 is put under challenge in this revision petition. The respondent as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 160/2011 in the Court of learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession along with the relief of injunction against the present defendant/ petitioner. The Schedule of the suit land described in the plaint is mentioned here in below : “SCHEDULE A plot of land measuring 2 (two) Kathas covered by F.C. Grant Patta No. 1 (old)/ 2 (New) of Dag No. 316 of Village–Natun Town Kharghuli, under Mouza–Ulubari, in the district of Kamrup (M), Assam which is bounded by:- North: 6 feet wide private road and manic Hzarika. South: Padma Das. East :and of Dag No.314, 315. West : Road.” 3. It is the contention by the plaintiff/respondent that she possesses the said suit land since long and on 30.10.2010 at about 4 pm, the defendant/petitioner along with some labourers entered into the suit land and threatened the plaintiff’s labourers and forcefully started to construct houses taking some materials of the plaintiff/respondent. Having informed about such encroachment by the defendant/petitioner, the plaintiff/respondent came to the suit land and requested the defendant/petitioner to vacate the suit land. Under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. proceeding was initiated which was registered as Case No. 238m/2010 but the police authority was not found to be helpful and as such, the plaintiff/respondent filed the suit within 6(six) months from the date of dispossession and accordingly, sought for the relief of recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. 4. The defendant/petitioner filed his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff/respondent making specific pleading that the defendant/petitioner neither claims any right, title and interest over the suit land nor tried to dispossess the plaintiff/respondent from the suit land at any point of time. It is further pleaded that the Case No.238m/2010 filed by the plaintiff/respondent was dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate at Kamrup (M), Guwahati holding that the land possessed by the defendant/petitioner is different from the plot of land of the plaintiff/respondent. It is further pleaded that the Case No.238m/2010 filed by the plaintiff/respondent was dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate at Kamrup (M), Guwahati holding that the land possessed by the defendant/petitioner is different from the plot of land of the plaintiff/respondent. It is the contention of the defendant/petitioner that he is possessing the plot of land measuring 1 Katha, 10 Lechas covered by Das Nos. 315 and 316 of F.S. Grant Patta No. 8 of Village-Sahar Guwahati 6th part under Mouza-Ulubari in the district of Kamrup(M), Guwahati, which is bounded on the North by land covered under Dag No. 317, on the South by land of Shri Arup Jyoti Das covered by Dag No. 314, on the East by 4/9 land of Raj Kumar Kabindra Narayan Deb and on the West by a road. The said plot of land has been in his possession since the year 1964 by constructing an Assam type house and raising the boundary fencing. The said land was, later on, purchased from its original owner Raj Kumar Kabindra Narayan Deb by way of a registered sale deed No. 697/2010 dated 29.10.2010. After the said purchase, the name of the defendant/petitioner was duly recorded in the record of rights. The land of the plaintiff/respondent mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint is completely a different plot from the one under possession of the defendant/petitioner, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action. 5. After filing the written statement, the defendant/petitioner filed an application under Order XII Rule 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) with an interrogatory as follows:- “6. That, in view of the above, it has become necessary to issue notice to the plaintiff to admit the fact that the land claimed by the plaintiff is different plot of land and not the land owned and possessed by the defendant no.1 as held by the learned District Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in the Order dtd. 28.02.2012 passed in the Case No. 238m/2010 filed by the plaintiff and therefore, instant application has been filed by the defendants praying for a owing them to take stapes for issuance of notice to admit facts as indicated above up on the plaintiff as provided for under Order-12, Rule 4 & 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 6. 28.02.2012 passed in the Case No. 238m/2010 filed by the plaintiff and therefore, instant application has been filed by the defendants praying for a owing them to take stapes for issuance of notice to admit facts as indicated above up on the plaintiff as provided for under Order-12, Rule 4 & 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 6. In response to the said application under Order XII Rule 4 and 5 of the CPC, the plaintiff/respondent filed his objection thereby responding to the interrogatory as follows:- “That, in view of the above, it is admi ed that the land measuring 2 [two] Kathas covered by Das No. 316 of F.C. Grant Patta No.1 (old)/2 (New) of Village–Natun Town Khar guliunder Mouza–Ulubari in the district to fKamrup (M), Assam, which is more fully mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint and claimed by the plainti is di erent plot of land and not the land measuring 1 [one] Katha, 10[ten] Lechas covered by Dag Nos. 315 and 316 of F.S. Grant Patta No.8ofVi age–Sahar Guwahat i6thpart under Mouza–Ulubari in the district of Kamurp (M), Assam, which is more fully mentioned in the Schedule of the wri en statement and owned and possessed by the defendant no.1 and the same is also held by the learned District Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in the Order dtd. 28.02.2012 passed in the Case No. 238m/2010 filed by the plaintiff, which document i.e., the said Order dtd. 28.02.2012 is hereby admitted by the plaintiff ” 7. On the basis of the reply by way of objection of the petitioner/respondent against the interrogatory of the defendant/petitioner, an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC was filed by the defendant/petitioner for passing judgment an admission by dismissing the Title Suit No. 160.2011 as against the defendant/petitioner. The said petition was disposed of vide Order dated 18.02.2014 (impugned one) by the learned trial court dismissing the same by holding as follows:- “7. Accordingly it can be held that the defendant has based its defence on a different plot of land and if the plaintiff states that such land is different, as has already been stated by the defendant, then the same will not amount to admitting the original claims of the plaintiff which is admittedly on a different plot of land. 8. Accordingly it can be held that the defendant has based its defence on a different plot of land and if the plaintiff states that such land is different, as has already been stated by the defendant, then the same will not amount to admitting the original claims of the plaintiff which is admittedly on a different plot of land. 8. Accordingly as discussed above the present prayers of the petitioner vide petition number 3454/13 U/O 12Rule 6 read with Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC along with petition No.1577 under Order 7 Rule 4 and 5 of the C.P.C. 1908 is hereby rejected. Let for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy between the parties, the suit be proceeded with and any substantive issue be decided in the main suit. 9. Fix 6.3.2014 for ADR/DI/ISSUES.” 8. Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below was wrong in dismissing the same. Referring Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, it is submitted that where admissions of fact are made either in the pleadings or otherwise, orally or in writing the court has the jurisdiction at any stage of the suit either on the application of the any party or of its own motion to make such order to give such judgment as it may think fit having regard to such admissions. In the present case in hand, the plaintiff/respondent alleged that the defendant/petitioner trespassed forcibly over the suit land and possessed the same illegally. Against the said pleading the defendant/petitioner came up with the pleading in the written statement that the land which is under his possession is not the one which forms the subject matter of the suit. It is also specifically pleaded that the defendant/petitioner has no claim over the suit land. In order to affirm the said defence a specific interrogatory was sent to the plaintiff/respondent, which was admitted by the plaintiff/respondent admitting that the land under possession of the defendant/petitioner is not the land which is the subject matter of the suit. It means a specific admission on the part of the plaintiff/respondent with respect to the fact in issue that the defendant/petitioner does not possess the suit land and as such, the court below ought to have invoked its jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. It means a specific admission on the part of the plaintiff/respondent with respect to the fact in issue that the defendant/petitioner does not possess the suit land and as such, the court below ought to have invoked its jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. There is no bar in making an application by the defendant/petitioner merely he being the defendant if the provision under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is considered which is specific that the said application for judgment on admission can be filed by any party to the suit. The learned court below against the said prayer held that the defendant/petitioner based his defence on a different plot of land and as such, the same does not amount to admission of the original claim of the plaintiff/respondent. In order to buttress the submission, the learned counsel relying on the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. –Vs.-United Bank of India and Others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 120 submits that whenever there is a clear admission of facts by the parties to the suit on the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed, under such circumstances the jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC has to be invoked by the Court. The object of the Rule as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court is to enable the party to obtain speedy judgment to the extent of the relief, the parties are entitled. Mr. Choudhury submits that the impugned order requires interference by this Court. 9. Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the suit is under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court is required to adjudicate as to whether the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff within 6(six) months prior to the date of filing the suit. The defence of the defendant/petitioner that he is possessing a separate plot of land which is raised in the written statement and the same having admitted by the plaintiff/respondent, it does not mean that the plaintiff/respondent has no case at all. The main crux of the issue to be decided by the court below is whether on 30.10.2010, the defendant/petitioner dispossessed the plaintiff/respondent and since then possessed the suit land illegally. The main crux of the issue to be decided by the court below is whether on 30.10.2010, the defendant/petitioner dispossessed the plaintiff/respondent and since then possessed the suit land illegally. The same requires evidence inasmuch as the interrogatory was not directed with regard to the act of dispossession by the defendant/petitioner. Accordingly, no interference is required by this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 10. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel. On perusal of the reply to the interrogatory, it is clear and specific that the plaintiff/respondent admitted the land under possession of the defendant/petitioner is not the same as that of the suit land. It is pleaded in the written statement that in the year 2010, the defendant/petitioner purchased the land mentioned in the written statement with specific boundaries. A proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated at the instance of the plaintiff/respondent and therein by filing the written statement the defendant/petitioner took the plea that the land under his possession is different than the one forming the disputed land in the said proceeding. On the basis of the said finding, the said proceeding was dropped. The plaintiff/respondent filed the suit citing the fact of dispossession by the defendant/petitioner with respect to the land under her possession forming the suit land and the defendant/petitioner contested the claim of the plaintiff/respondent by filing his written statement. There is an admission on the part of the plaintiff/respondent that the suit land forming the subject matter is not similar to the one under possession of the defendant/petitioner and the said admission is from the plaintiff/respondent herself. As pointed out by Mr. Mahanta, the interrogatory was not specific with respect to the allegation of dispossession by the defendant/petitioner. Had there been an admission on the part of the plaintiff/respondent that the defendant/respondent did not dispossess the plaintiff/respondent that would have been sufficient for drawal of a judgment on admission. 11. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned court below applied its discretion and held that for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy between the parties the suit be proceeded in order to decided the substantive issue in the suit. On a specific query to Mr. Choudhury with regard to the exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC by a Court, Mr. On a specific query to Mr. Choudhury with regard to the exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC by a Court, Mr. Choudhury rightly replies that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is not mandatory but discretionary. The court below had applied its discretion in order to decide the substantive issue in the suit between the parties. The said exercise of the discretion by the court cannot be throttled by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 12. Thus, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same stands dismissed. 13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 14. Parties to this suit shall appear before the court below on 31.01.2019 and on the said appearance of the parties, the trial shall continue and to be completed to logical conclusion possibly within a period of 3(three) months from 31.01.2019. 15. Send back the LCR at the earliest keeping in view the date of appearance of the parties. 16. No cost. This revision petition accordingly stands disposed of.