Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010117812024 2025:GAU-AS:2557 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/196/2024 TROILUKYA GOHAIN BARUAH S/O- LATE MIHI KANTA GOHAIN BARUAH, R/O- NAKARI NAGAR, WARD NO-3, P.O AND P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787001. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT LAMB ROAD, H.NO-42, 3RD FLOOR, LATASIL, P.S- LATAIL, UZANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-01, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, VERSUS MOHINI GOHAIN BARUAH AND 2 ORS S/O- LATE MIHI KANTA GOHAIN BARUAH, R/O- NAKARI NAGAR, WARD NO-3, P.O AND P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787001. 2:SEROB ALI S/O- LATE JAWBED ALI R/O- BAGALIJAN P.O- BAGALIJAN P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787031 3:RAHIM ALI Page No.# 2/3 S/O- LATE KASHEM ALI R/O- CHAKULUBARIA P.O - CHABATI P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787001 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, Advocate : Mr. A. K. Gupta, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 10.03.2025 Heard Mr. S. J. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. D. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.11/2024 whereby the application filed by the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for seeking a judgment on admission was rejected. 3. This Court has duly taken note of the plaint as well as the written statement so filed. In addition to that, this Court has also taken note of that the learned Trial Court had duly considered the pleadings of both the parties and also the provisions of law and in that regard, categorically Page No.# 3/3 opined in paragraph No.13 of the impugned order that mere admission of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 would not be sufficient to pass the judgment on admission and there are materials facts that need to be adjudicated upon and without such deliberation, passing of admission decree at that stage would not be appropriate as the parties and others, if any, interested in the suit would be prejudiced of any relief to be decided on merit. 4. Taking into account that the reasons so assigned, this Court finds no ground to interfere and exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Considering the above, the instant petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant