Or. 7, rule 14 C.P.C. = No amount of evidence is allowed to be adduced with out pleadings ,Document petition for receiving a will deed with out pleadings was rightly rejected by lower court = MAKAM SUBBARAYUDU VS MAKAM BALA SUBBAIAH & 4 OTHER = published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRP&mno=1811&year=2013

Or. 7, rule 14 C.P.C. = No amount of evidence is allowed to be adduced with out pleadings ,Document petition for receiving a will deed with out pleadings was rightly rejected by lower court =

request for production of the Will was declined on the ground that neither in the plaint nor in the chief examination affidavit of the petitioner, examined as PW-1, was there any mention of the said Will executed by his father. 

The law is well settled that any amount of evidence in the absence of pleadings would have no relevance.  As the petitioner failed to plead the existence of the Will in question, it has no relevance in the suit.  Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner.

CRP 1811 / 2013

CRPSR 10316 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT MAKAM SUBBARAYUDU   VS MAKAM BALA SUBBAIAH & 4 OTHERS PET.ADV. : VEERA REDDY RESP.ADV. :  SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227 DISTRICT:  KURNOOL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

C.R.P.No.1811 of 2013

Date : 3-6-2013

Between:

Makam Subbarayudu                                                    .. Petitioner

And

Makam Bala Subbaiah

and others                                                                      .. Respondents

Counsel for petitioner : Sri P. Veera Reddy

Counsel for respondents : --

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

          This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 21-2-2013 in I.A.No.98/2013 in O.S.No.45/2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, whereby the said I.A. filed by the petitioner for receiving Will dated 2-3-1991 purportedly executed by his father, was dismissed.

          The order under revision shows that the request for production of the Will was declined on the ground that neither in the plaint nor in the chief examination affidavit of the petitioner, examined as PW-1, was there any mention of the said Will executed by his father. 

          Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that even though there was no reference to the Will in the pleadings and the affidavit of the petitioner, respondent No.2 in his deposition has made a reference to the said Will which led to the necessity of producing the same by the petitioner. 

          I am afraid, this submission cannot be accepted, for, even this explanation which is putforth by the learned counsel before this Court has not been found in the affidavit filed before the lower Court in I.A.No.98/2013.  The law is well settled that any amount of evidence in the absence of pleadings would have no relevance.  As the petitioner failed to plead the existence of the Will in question, it has no relevance in the suit.  Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner.

          For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

          As a sequel, CRPMP No.2432/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

________________________

Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

Date : 3-6-2013

                             

AM