Oral Order: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.)
1. This is an appeal against the order and judgment of the learned single Judge granting a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit for a declaration that an indenture of lease dated 19th April, 1989 executed by respondent No.3 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA)/original defendant No.1 through its Chief Officer-respondent No.4/original defendant No.2 is valid, binding and subsisting and for a declaration that an indenture of lease dated 23rd May, 2003 executed by MHADA in favour of the appellant/original defendant No.3 is null and void and not binding upon respondent No.1 to the extent of allotment of an open plot of land admeasuring about 270 sq.mtrs.
2. The lease deed executed in favour of the respondent No.1 was in respect of CTS No.1268 (p). The lease deed executed in favour of the appellant is in respect of CTS No.464(p). Admittedly, the lease deed in favour of the respondent No.1 is prior to the lease deed executed in favour of the appellant. By the impugned order, the learned Judge granted a decree on admission even against the appellant on the basis of the admissions of the respondent Nos.3 and 4. The subject matter of controversy is a plot of land admeasuring 270 sq. mtrs. Prima facie, at least, based on the lease deed, one of the most important questions would be as to whether the 270 sq.mtrs. falls within CTS No.1268(p) or CTS No.464(p). MHADA filed the affidavit in the first respondent's notice of motion for a decree on admission stating that the 270 sq. mtrs. in question actually falls within CTS 1268. It is difficult to understand as to how a decree on admission could have been passed on the basis of such an admission in the affidavit. In any event, it was not possible to pass a decree on admission against the appellant on the basis of an admission made by the other defendants namely respondent Nos.3 and 4. The question whether the 270 sq.mtrs. falls within CTS No.464(p) or CTS No.1268 would require evidence. If indeed the 270 sq. mtrs. in dispute falls within the lease deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiffs would have a very strong case. That however, is an entirely different thing from holding that the plaintiffs are entitled, at this stage, to a decree on admission against the appellant based on an alleged admission of another defendant namely respondent Nos.3 and 4.
3. The decree on admission could, at the highest, be granted only against respondent Nos.3 and 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we are not inclined to uphold the impugned order and judgment, even as against respondent Nos.3 and 4, as such a decree could have an adverse effect on the appellant. In the event of the appellant succeeding, for instance, there would be conflicting decrees. It is necessary, therefore, that the entire matter is heard on merits.
4. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order is set-aside. The suit is restored to the file and shall be heard on merits. However, the interim reliefs granted in the suit shall continue pending hearing and final disposed of the suit. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.