The learned trial Court by order Annexure P/9 while partly allowed the application seeking amendment in the written-statement, it rejected the remaining part of the sought amendment. The remaining averments of the proposed amendment were only for the elaboration of the facts, which were stated earlier, and allowing such averments, to be taken on record by way of amendment, was neither necessary nor proper for the just decision of the case. Order Annexure P /12 is another order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting another application of the petitioner-defendant filed under Order 6 Rule 17, of the Civil Procedure Code, almost on the similar allegations, which were made in the earlier application and were rejected by the Court by Annexure P/9. There was yet another application, which was also decided under Order Annexure P /12 and that was with regard to the permission sought by the plaintiff for adducing the secondary evidence. The plaintiff had filed an application submitting a certified copy of the registered sale-deed dated 5.10.92 as also the certified copy of the property tax register of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, which were sought to be tendered in the evidence, that the summoning of the original documents from the two offices, i.e., the Office of the Sub-Registrar and of the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, would unnecessarily consume time, and therefore, accepting of the two documents in secondary evidence was prayed. The prayer of the plaintiff-respondent found favour with the trial Court on the ground that the genuineness of the two documents could not be doubted or disputed, and therefore, plaintiff's prayer was allowed. On the revisions being preferred by the petitioner/defendant, the learned revisional Court dismissed both the revisions by composite order Annexure P/13.

The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the orders of the Courts below and it was contended that the applications of the petitioner seeking amendment of the written-statement could not be dismissed by the Courts below, as the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17; CPC, are required to be liberally construed. There could be no controversy about this principle, but the contention advanced by the petitioner has no substance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The two Courts below while allowing the part amendment have found that the remaining proposed amendment was wholly unnecessary for the decision of the case. Perusing the two applications, 1 have myself found that through the proposed amendment, the defendant only seeks to elaborate the facts stated earlier and existing in written-statement. It is well settled that the evidence to be led by a party in support of its averments, is not to be pleaded and the two Courts below have, therefore, rightly rejected the remaining part of the amendment and in that regard, 1 have found no illegality, perversity or want of jurisdiction in the two orders Annexure P/9 and R/12 to that extent.

So far as the prayer of the plaintiff, which has been allowed by the Courts below by accepting the two documents in secondary evidence is concerned, the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel have much substance. When the original documents were not only existing but were also available, the allowing of the prayer only on the ground that summoning of the original documents in evidence would be time consuming, could not be held to be a valid ground for accepting the documents in secondary evidence. The two Courts below have not found that the documents were public documents, and as such they were not required to be proved by summoning the originals. In this case, the respondent No. 1's counsel has relied upon the authority of Md. Saimuddin Sheikh v. Abejuddin Sheikh (AIR 1979 Gauhati 14) to contend that the certified copies of the private documents, of which the record was maintained by the State, were the public documents and were not required to be formally proved. 1 am unable