:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6406 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6406 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6406 OF 2007 Attmaram Laxman Waingankar ..Petitioner versus Shantabai Gopal Waingankar & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Chetan Agrawal for the Petitioner. Mr. Sushil Matkar i/b. M/s. Corps Legal for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. By consent, rule returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner / Plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.2007 of the Court below Exhibit 36 rejecting the application for producing the certified measurements of a map which is already on record. The learned trial court rejected the application on the ground that there are no pleadings to the effect that certified measurements took place. :2: 4. I see no valid reason why the trial court should have rejected the application. In this suit for encroachment, a map drawn by T.I.L.R. was filed along with the plaint. However, at the time of evidence, the plaintiff thought it desirable to produce the measurements on the basis of which map was prepared and applied for the witness summons to the T.I.L.R. for bringing measurements along with the map. The plaintiff also produced a certified copy of the measurements which were in his possession. However, his application for taking the measurements on record has been rejected on the ground that there is no pleading to that effect. In doing so, the learned trial court has lost sight of the well established difference between the pleadings and evidence. It should have been seen that the measurements were produced as evidence of the pleadings pertaining to encroachment and in support of the map, which was already on record. In the circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be and is hereby set aside. Plaintiff’s application, Exhibit 36 is allowed. Rule answered accordingly. :3: (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)