Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Relying on the decisions reported in AIR 1930 P.C. 57, Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran and Ors. and 1999 (2005) C.L.T. 48 : 2004 (Supp.) OLR 910, Para Biswal v. Janjali Khan, Mr. Kar submitted that Ext. 4 should not have been admitted in evidence as there was no pleading about its existence. Law is settled that a party cannot be permitted to lead evidence beyond his pleadings. But a party is not required to mention all his evidence in the pleadings. Ext. 4 is an agreement between defendant Nos. 3 and 8. It was produced by P.W. 4 and the said witness clarified under what circumstance it was in his possession and was produced by him in Court. The appellant raised no objection when it was proved. No doubt, some evidence was led by defendant No. 8 by way of explanation that blank stamp papers were stolen and Ext. 4 was created. But the first appellate Court at pages-13 & 14 of its judgment elaborately discussed all these aspects. When the document was in custody of P.W. 4 and was produced by him and the plaintiff had no knowledge about the existence of such document, there was no scope of any pleading about Ext. 4. So, learned Courts below did not commit any legal error in accepting Ext. 4 in evidence.