ORDER : The sole defendant before the trial Court is the revision petitioner. The two plaintiffs in the suit are the respondents herein. This civil revision petition filed under Section 115 C.P.C. questions the correctness of order dated 25.02.2019 of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.813 of 2018 in O.S.No.514 of 2015. By the impugned order, which was made under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C., the trial Court held its opinion that there were adequate admissions to pass a preliminary decree directing the tenant to vacate the suit schedule property. It is in challenge to that, the tenantdefendant has come up with this revision. 2. O.S.No.514 of 2015 is a suit filed with the following prayers : “a) Directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property, his men and belongings and put the plaintiffs in vacant plaint schedule property; b) Directing the defendants to pay the mense profits or damages as prayed by the plaintiffs to be ascertained by the Advocate Commissioner as appointed by the Honourable Court upon separate application filed by the plaintiff in the event of decree; c) Costs of the suit; d) for such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Defendant filed a written statement traversing all the plaint mentioned allegations and sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs stating that the litigation commenced is vexatious. While the suit was pending and three years after the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order XIX Rule 6 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with the following prayer “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitionerplaintiffs most respectfully pray that the honourable court be pleased in the ends of justice and fair play to take cognizance of the admissions of the jural relationship and service of quit notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and also the fact that in law the tenancy is only month-to-month and grant decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and against the respondentdefendant directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property forthwith or within such time as be specified by the honourable Court, as otherwise the petitionerplaintiffs are bound to suffer irreparable loss and injury.” That application is I.A.No.813 of 2018. 4. 4. The defendant in the suit filed a verified counter contending that the application is not maintainable and there are no merits in it and it had to be dismissed with costs. 5. After hearing learned counsel on both sides and after considering the plaint and the written statement and the contents of the petition and the counter, a very elaborate order consisting of 33 pages was passed by learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and finally it allowed the petition and passed the following order “41. In the result, petition is allowed by preliminarily decreeing the suit directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property and to put the plaintiffs in vacant possession of plaint schedule property within three months of this order and that plaintiffs are at liberty to file a separate application for ascertaining the mesne profitsdamages, as prayed by them by way of appointing an advocate commissioner for that purpose.” Then it also passed a preliminary decree. A copy of which is available on record and the preliminary decree that is passed is extracted here “1. that the petition be and the same is hereby preliminarily decreed; 2. that the respondentdefendant be and hereby directed to vacate the plaint schedule property and to put the plaintiffs in vacant possession of plaint schedule property within three months of this order; 3. that the plaintiffs are at liberty to file a separate application for ascertaining the mense profitsdamages, as prayed by them by way of appointing an advocate commissioner for that purpose; 4. that there be no order as to costs. (copy of the plaint schedule is attached hereto)” 6. It is as against that, the present civil revision petition is filed. Various grounds are urged stating that under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. a judgment could be made only when admissions were clear and categorical and in the case at hand, they were missing and the trial Court erroneously decided the case and it failed to notice that a judgment on admissions is not inferential and not mandatory and is discretionary and the trial Court failed to exercise its discretion in accordance with law and therefore, interference is needed especially since the written statement discloses agreement for sale, pendency of another suit and right to enjoy common amenities. 7. 7. As against that order, learned counsel for respondents plaintiffs in the suit submit that plaintiffs as landlords sued the tenant seeking for eviction and from the written statement the jural relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted and the pleadings of the plaintiffs about issuance of quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not denied by the defendant in the suit and the factum of notice and the validity of the notice were never questioned in the written statement and it was in those circumstances, the trial Court rightly concluded the admissions available in the written statement and partly decreed the suit by passing a preliminary decree leaving open other issues to be decided by way of subsequent applications. There was no error of jurisdiction and this revision is not maintainable. 8. In what circumstances the trial Court could pass the judgment on admissions has been subject matter of decision in many cases. Learned counsel for revision petitioner cited Himani Alloys Limited v. Tata Steel Limited, (2011) 15 SCC 273 Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd. v. Daljit Singh, (2019) 20 SCC 425 and Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, 2022 Lawsuit (SC) 776. 9. As against that, learned counsel for respondents cited Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Choudhary, (2012) 11 SCC 405 . Principles of law laid down therein are the guiding principles for every Court while adjudicating the questions concerning judgment on admissions. It is to be noted that on these principles of law there is absolutely no controversy. The purport of these judgments is that a judgment on admissions is a matter of discretion and it is not mandatory for a trial Court to decide a suit only based on admissions and these principles further indicate that a Court should see whether the admission is clear, whether the admission is unambiguous and whether the admission is unconditional. It is only in those circumstances, the Courts are empowered to act upon such admissions and decide the lis. 10. There are few more facts that are required to be noticed in this revision. During the pendency of this revision, at the request of the revision petitioner, on an application this Court had earlier granted stay of further proceedings. Thereafter, the respondents in this revision moved I.A.No.1 of 2022 praying to vacate the said interim orders. 10. There are few more facts that are required to be noticed in this revision. During the pendency of this revision, at the request of the revision petitioner, on an application this Court had earlier granted stay of further proceedings. Thereafter, the respondents in this revision moved I.A.No.1 of 2022 praying to vacate the said interim orders. The material papers presented indicate something that is relevant for consideration here. The present revision petitioner filed A.S.No.174 of 2019 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. At para No.3 for the grounds of appeal what is mentioned is extracted here: “III. (…..) Hence, the appellant prefers this appeal as aggrieved by the said preliminary decree and order passed in I.A.8132018 in O.S.5142015, consequently allowing the suit O.S.5142015 by passing a preliminary decree and judgment on 25-02-2019 by the Honourable II-Addl.Senior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam.” The prayer in the appeal is also extracted here “V. For these and other reasons to be submitted at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the Honourable Court may be pleased to allow the appeal. (a) By setting aside the preliminary decree and order dt.25.02.2019 passed in O.S.5142015 by the Honourable II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and to dismiss the suit O.S.5142015; (b) For costs (c) For such other relief or reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the appeal.” 11. That appeal was presented before the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam on 17.6.2019. The same appellant is the revision petitioner herein and the present revision petition was filed much thereafter on 16.08.2019. These facts are not disputed by the revision petitioner. Thus, the defendant in the suit, who is admittedly a tenant under the respondentsplaintiffs having suffered an adverse order at the hands of the trial Court, preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court and then preferred this civil revision petition before this Court. This civil revision petition is completely silent about presentation of first appeal by this revision petitioner. Thus, there is conspicuous choice exercised in not mentioning about the appeal. This civil revision petition is completely silent about presentation of first appeal by this revision petitioner. Thus, there is conspicuous choice exercised in not mentioning about the appeal. It is on this aspect of the matter, the respondents plaintiffs seriously argued that the conduct of the revision petitioner is nothing short of playing fraud on the Court; and fairness in pleadings is the prerequisite when any litigation is presented to any Court of law more so before this Court. How such conduct should be denounced and should be dealt with harshly is argued citing Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 K.D.Sharma v. Sail, (2008) 12 SCC 481 and K.Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority, 2021 SCC Online SC 1194. 12. Thus, as the things stand now the decision that was taken by the trial Court is the subject matter of debate and decision pending before the first appellate Court as well as this revisional Court. 13. This fact situation has given rise to two important contentions before this Court. The first contention is that a revision against the impugned order is not maintainable. The second contention is even if the revision is maintainable, the submissions of the revision petitioner should not be considered on the sole ground that it is guilty of suppression of material facts. 14. On the question of maintainability of revision, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that since the order is passed by the trial Court on an interlocutory application, the revision petition is maintainable. 15. As against it, learned counsel for respondents submits that a judgment on admissions is a statutory provision contained in Order XII Rule 1 read with Section 6 C.P.C. and therefore, the trial Court taking a decision based on the pleadings cannot be called as an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction which is not vested with it and therefore, the revision is not maintainable. 16. For appropriate consideration of these aspects, one is required to notice the following provisions Order XII Rule “1. Notice of admission of case……………. 2. Notice to admit documents……….. 2.A. Document to be deemed to be admitted if not denied after service of notice to admit documents……….. 3. Form of notice……… 4. 16. For appropriate consideration of these aspects, one is required to notice the following provisions Order XII Rule “1. Notice of admission of case……………. 2. Notice to admit documents……….. 2.A. Document to be deemed to be admitted if not denied after service of notice to admit documents……….. 3. Form of notice……… 4. Notice to admit facts Any party, may, by notice in writing, at any time not later than nine days before the day fixed for the hearing, call on any other party to admit, for the purposes of the suit only, any specific fact or facts, mentioned in such notice. And in case of refusal or neglect to admit the same within six days after service of such notice, or within such further time as may be allowed by the Court, the costs of proving such fact or facts shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, whatever the result of the suit may be, unless the Court otherwise directs Provided that any admission made in pursuance of such notice is to be deemed to be made only for the purposes of the particular suit, and not as an admission to be used against the party on any other occasion or in favour of any person other than the party giving the notice. 5. Form of admissions……….. 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 thing 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.” 17. Thus, the above provision would show that the powers under Order XII C.P.C. could be exercised one with reference to a finding on a fact based on admissions. Where this finding is made on admissions an order is to be passed in that regard and that by itself does not dispose of the entire suit or a part of the suit. Therefore, the provision allows to make such order as is required. Where this finding is made on admissions an order is to be passed in that regard and that by itself does not dispose of the entire suit or a part of the suit. Therefore, the provision allows to make such order as is required. The other aspect of the matter is where the admissions are on such facts which allow the Court to decide a particular issue or the entire suit itself. In such cases, the decision has to be in the form of a judgment. The provisions makes it clear that the power of the Court in deciding anything under Order XII C.P.C. is available with it and it could be exercised by itself on its own or it could also be exercised at the instance of parties who bring it to the notice of the Court by moving an application. That moving an application either for an order or for a judgment on an issue is one relevant factor that is to be kept in notice by the Courts. In the case at hand, the prayer was for eviction of a tenant on the allegation that despite due termination of tenancy, the tenant did not vacate the premises. It is that aspect of the matter that was decided by the trial Court on admissions and the trial Court decided it in favour of the landlord and passed the judgment. That there are admissions is a fact that was brought to the notice of the Court only by way of the interlocutory application moved by the plaintiffs. That application was not for inviting a finding merely on one of the facts which could be utilized while trying the suit. That application is for decision on one of the important prayers. The distinction between an application inviting a decision on an admitted fact and an application requesting grant of one of the prayers in the suit are two different things. Since in the case at hand, a main prayer in the suit itself was decided on admissions the Court below passed a preliminary decree. Since there is a decree the tenant preferred first appeal. When it had preferred first appeal, what is the need for the tenant to also move this revision petition. 18. One may also notice the definition of decree. Since there is a decree the tenant preferred first appeal. When it had preferred first appeal, what is the need for the tenant to also move this revision petition. 18. One may also notice the definition of decree. “The term 'decree is defined by Sub-section (2) of Section 2 C.P.C. as under decree means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include -- (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final. 19. It is clear from the definition of the term 'decree' that it may be either preliminary or final and a decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It further transpires from the definition of 'decree' that any order passed at any stage of its proceeding in a suit by which the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit are conclusively determined shall tantamount to a 'decree' in the eye of law. In the instant case, indisputably, the impugned 'order' conclusively determines the rights of parties in regard to the matter in controversy and accordingly the 'decree' has been drawn up by the Court below. 20. The reading of Order 12, Rule 6 of C.P.C. and the plain language of this provision read with Section 2(2) C.P.C. makes it crystal dear that any order passed by the Trial Court allowing the plaintiff's claim either partly or fully on the basis of defendant's admission at any stage of the suit is a judgment to be followed by a 'decree', either preliminary or final, and that it is not merely an interim order passed in the proceeding deciding the rights and obligations of the parties. 21. 21. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute as to the legal position that any order passed under Order 12, Rule 6 C.P.C. by the Trial Court is a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) C.P.C. One should also notice Section 115 Revision -- (1).... (2) The High Court shall not under this Section, vary, or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. Explanation In this Section, the expression, any case which has been decided includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding. 22. The plain language of Sub-section (2) makes the legal position clear that no revision lies to the High Court from any decree or order passed by a subordinate Court in the course of the suit or other proceeding if an appeal lies against the same either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. In that view of the mandate of law contained in Section 115(2) C.P.C. it was rightly submitted by Learned Counsel for respondents that since the impugned decree of the Court-below is an appealable one by virtue of Section 96 C.P.C. this revision therefrom is incompetent. The revisionist could raise all objections available to it against the impugned decree of the Court-below in the appeal against it, including the ground that it had been passed by it without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction. Reference in this regard can also be made to Shyamala Bai v. Smt. S.Saraswathi Bai, (1996) SCC Online Kar 4171996 (5) Kar LJ 709 23. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel for revision petitioner that the revision is maintainable is one without any merit. 24. The fact remains, the revision petitioner has chosen not to disclose pendency of first appeal filed by it. Such conduct on part of the revision petitioner is against fair play that is required and is strongly deprecated. 25. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 25.02.2019 of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.813 of 2018 in O.S.No.514 of 2015 with costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.