JUDGMENT : Rekha Borana, J. The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nathdwara in Civil First Appeal No. 14/2016 whereby the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Nathdwara in Civil Suit No. 109/2010 has been reversed and the matter had been remanded to the trial Court for trial afresh without being affected by the judgment as passed by the appellate Court. 2. The brief facts are that suit for permanent injunction and declaration was preferred by the plaintiff-Nathdwara Temple Board against the defendant. In the said suit an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was preferred by the plaintiff with the submission that an application dated 31.07.2010 was moved by the defendant to the authorities of the Temple Board wherein the ownership of the Temple Board was specifically admitted by the defendant and after admitting the said ownership, the defendant proposed/requested for the shops in question to be rented to him. 3. A reply to the said application was preferred by the defendant and he specifically denied any such application being moved before the Temple Board and further denied any admission as alleged by the plaintiff-Board regarding its ownership. 4. The trial Court, while deciding the application under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC proceeded on to hold that the application dated 31.07.2010 moved by the defendant before the plaintiff-Temple Board was a clear admission of the ownership of the Temple Board and with the said finding, proceeded on to decree the suit of the plaintiff on the basis of said admission. 5. Against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2016 as passed by the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-Ram Lal wherein the appellate Court while relying upon the judgments in the cases of Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF), (2010) 6 SCC 601 and Ankit Udhyog v. Laxman Prasad, (2001) 4 RLW 596 specifically concluded that once the defendant had specifically denied any application being moved before the plaintiff-authorities, the admission, even if any, became ambiguous and doubtful and therefore, could not have been termed to be an admission in terms of Order 12 Rule 6, CPC as the same ought to be clear, specific and unambiguous. The appellate Court further held that the defendant had specifically denied the ownership of the Temple Board in his written statement and therefore also, the admission as concluded by the trial Court could not have been concluded so in terms of Order 12 Rule 6, CPC. 6. Perused the record. 7. The fact that the application dated 31.07.2010 was placed on record by the plaintiff with the submission that it was filed by the defendant before its authorities, could not, without having been proved on record, concluded to be a final proof of the said application having been preferred by the defendant. Admittedly, the application was not moved before the Court and it was alleged to be moved before the plaintiff authorities. Once the defendant had denied the filing of the said document, the Court below was under an obligation to get the document proved before reaching to any conclusion regarding the admission of the author of the said document. It is clear on record that neither any issue, even preliminary, has been framed nor any evidence has been led to prove the said document. In absence of the document having been proved on record, the trial Court could not have proceeded on to hold the same to be an admission so as to decree the suit on basis of such alleged admission. Therefore, the reversal of the judgment by the appellate Court being perfectly in consonance with law, does not deserve an interference by this Court. 8. The present appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and the same is therefore, dismissed. 9. Stay petition stands disposed of.