No evidence beyond the pleadings can be considered, and defendant No.4's act of increasing the amount in the written statement without proper pleading was deplored.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. Defendant No.4 is in second appeal though first appeal is not preferred by it. Brief facts of the case are that defendant No.4 allotted a plot SCF No.12 situated at Shaheed Sewa Singh Thikri Wala Nagar, Rajpura Road, Patiala to defendants No. 1 and

2. Defendants No.l & 2 entered into an agreement to sell dated 27.1.1998 and allotted plot through their power of attorney Bhajan Singh to Gurcharan Singh/defendant No.3. Defendant No.3, in turn, sold the Plot SCF No.12 (hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute) to the plaintiff after obtaining No Due Certificate on account of non-construction charges from defendant No.4. The case set up by the plaintiff is that at the time of transfer no amount was due in the name of her vendors as an amount of Rs.6333/- was already deposited by them with defendant No.4 vide receipt dated 21.1.1998 towards late construction fee upto 31.12.1998 and in order to raise construction a site plan was submitted to defendant No.4 with necessary fee of Rs.6346/- deposited on 13.11.1998. The construction on the plot was to be allegedly completed upto 31.12.1998. However, defendant No.4 neither sanctioned the site plan despite request of the plaintiff nor issued the sale deed in her name so that she could raise loan for construction rather a sum of Rs.48166/- was demanded as late fee for non-construction upto 31.12.1998 and the plaintiff was further threatened to complete the construction upto 31.12.1998 failing which her plot was ordered to be resumed and amount already deposited forfeited. Plaintiffs case is that until the site plan was sanctioned by defendant No.4 she could not have raised any construction. She had been asked to deposit the amount without giving details as to how the said amount was calculated and despite her letter dated 26.11.1998, no orders for issuance of sale deed was passed nor sanction was accorded. It is also submitted by her that defendant No.4 had got no right to recover any amount on account of late fee as earlier allottee had already deposited the same. During the pendency of the suit, Court vide its order dated 12.1.2000, had directed defendant No.4 to sanction and deliver the site plan to the plaintiff to enable her to construct the property in dispute but defendant No.4 had deliberately disobeyed the order. After putting in appearance, defendant No.4 resisted the suit. Besides taking technical pleas in the preliminary objections, on merits, it is denied that the property in dispute was allotted to defendants No.1 and 2, rather it is submitted that it was purchased by one Sandip Singh in the open auction and after his death it was transferred in the name of defendants No.1 and 2. However, it was admitted that plot was sold to plaintiff and transferred in her name by defendant No.4. It was claimed that the said transfer was subject to payment of balance amount, outstanding towards the property in question. The amount of Rs.6333/- allegedly deposited by the vendors of the plaintiff was denied. It was also submitted that after scrutiny of plaintiffs case for execution of the sale deed, it was found that a sum of Rs.19,870/- was due against her for late construction charges and thus the sale deed could not be executed in her favour, which as alleged, is the reason behind non-sanctioning of the plan. It was admitted that an amount of Rs.48,166/-was wrongly demanded and Rs.19,870/- was actually due and recoverable from the plaintiff. It was also denied that defendant No.4 had not sanctioned the site plan on 26.4.2000 in view of the Court order dated 12.1.2000 and alleged that no construction has been raised by the plaintiff. Defendants No.l, 2 & 3 did not appear, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte on 3.6.1999. The averments made in the written statement were replied by the plaintiff in her replication by denying the averments in the written statement and the stand taken in the plaint was reiterated. On 12.1.2000, on the pleadin