IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 270 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.09.2010 Surender Kumar Sharma …Petitioner. Versus Joginder Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Haresh Sood, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st June, 2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, in Civil Suit No. 147 of 2008, titled Surender Kumar Sharma versus Joginder Singh, whereby the application filed for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,50,000/-, being the principal amount, paid to the defendant on the basis of agreement dated 15.02.2006 and interest @ 18 per cent per annum, which was calculated at Rs. 1,08,750/- as on the date of filing of the suit. In the written statement, the respondent took the plea that no such 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 agreement was executed and, in fact, the defendant had only borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff and which he had returned, but his signatures were obtained on blank documents. 3. The Plaintiff, by means of the amendment application, wanted to amend the plaint and to add a para that earlier, an agreement dated 27.01.2005 had been entered into between the parties, whereby the defendant had agreed to sell some land to the plaintiff-petitioner and that the defendant had received two lakhs by way of two cheques and the balance amount in cash. It is not necessary to amend the plaint for this purpose. 4. One of the issues formed is whether the plaintiff has, in fact, paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant or not. This issue has to be proved by leading evidence. It is trite law that evidence has not to be pleaded in the pleadings. Therefore, no amendment is required. It is, however, clarified that the plaintiff shall be at liberty to prove the manner, in which he had paid this amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant. 5. The petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. No orders as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 13, 2010 (rajni)