The orders on I.A.Nos.11, 12 and 13 passed on

16.12.2022 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapur in

O.S.No.123/2018, are called in question in the present writ

petition.

02.

I.A.No.11 is filed under Order VII Rule 14 of

Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) to produce the

documents annexed to the list of documents. I.A.No.12 is

filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to summon one

witness named in the said application. I.A.No.13 is filed

under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to lead

further evidence in the matter.

03.

These applications are filed by the plaintiff in

the suit for specific performance of contract. The

applications are opposed by the defendant. The Trial Court

has over-ruled the objections and has allowed all three

applications. Consequently, permitted the plaintiff to

3

produce the documents annexed to the list and permitted

him to summon the witness by reopening the case.

04.

Sri. Shivakumar R. Kalloor, the learned counsel

for the petitioner would submit that the particulars of

which is sought to be produced to establish the alleged

source of income for the plaintiff to purchase the property

in terms of alleged agreement dated 23.07.2016, are not

pleaded in the plaint. It is further contended that the

attempt on the part of the plaintiff to examine one witness

by reopening the case is to fill up the lacuna which is

exposed

in

the

cross-examination.

Under

these

circumstances, he would submit that the impugned orders

are liable to be set-aside.

05.

This Court has considered the submission

raised at the bar and also considered the pleadings and

evidence placed before the Court.

4

06.

As already noticed that the suit is for specific

performance of contract, wherein the plaintiff claims to

have agreed to purchase the property for Rs.25,00,000/-.

It is needless to say that the burden of proving the

agreement as well as payment of consideration amount of

Rs.20,00,000/- which is said to have been paid to the

defendant. Though, the plaintiff has not pleaded anything

relating to the source of income in the plaint and now he is

trying to produce the document to establish his source of

income. For this reason, the Trial Court has permitted the

plaintiff to lead the evidence.

07.

It is needless to say that mere permission to

the party to produce a documentary evidence would not

lead to the conclusion that the Court has accepted the

evidentiary value of the document. The contention that the

necessary pleadings are not in the plaint to allow the

application to produce the document, cannot be accepted.

5

08.

The law relating to the pleadings is very clear.

The plaint or the written statement need not contain all the

details relating to the evidence to be produced by the

party. There has to be pleadings relating to the primary

documents and rest of the things are matters of evidence.

Assuming that there is no supporting pleading to accept

the evidence sought to be produced, still the defendant

can question the evidence on the ground that it lacked the

necessary pleadings and that aspect of the matter is not

foreclosed in terms of the impugned order. If the

contention that the evidence led by the party is without

pleading, then if such contention is supported by law

relating to pleading and evidence, the defendant can raise

such contention during the course of final hearing. In such

an event the plaintiff can also substantiate that pleading in

the plaint is good enough to admit the evidence which he

has led. These aspects have to be considered at the time

of final hearing.

6

09.

Under these circumstances, this Court does not

find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ

petition is dismissed.

10.

However it is made clear that merely because

this Court has not entertained the writ petition, it does not

mean that this Court has given any finding relating to the

admissibility of the documents which are sought to be

produced. The admissibility of all those documents are to

be considered in accord