1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1263/2010. Prakash Manoharrao Fursule -: VERSUS :- Manohar Bhalchandra Raut. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 10, 2010. Heard Shri C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for Petitioner and Shri Y.S. Gorle, learned Counsel for Respondent for respondent nos. 1,2,3 and 5. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel has not pressed the proposed amendment as per proposed paragraph no.4A of his application at Exh.77. He has restricted his contentions only to paragraph no.4B. He points out that suit is for recovery of certain amounts advanced by him and that advance has been accepted in telephonic conversation tape-recorded by the plaintiff after institution of the suit. He has invited attention to the proposed paragraph no.4B for said purpose. According to him, as the material is in the shape of tape recorded conversation necessary details are also given and trial Court 2 has mistaken those details as evidence. Shri Gorle, learned Counsel has read over the entire paragraph no.4B. According to him the petitioner plaintiff, is not seeking addition of pleadings but also is trying to place on record the evidence and subsequent requests being made to the trial Court for said purpose, like comparison of voice and for that purpose procurement of sample voices. It is true that Order VI Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure says that concise statement of material facts and facts only needs to be pleaded and not evidence. However, if some evidence is mentioned while pleading such facts, that does not make the facts inadmissible. Proposed of paragraph no.4B shows necessary details so as to establish the identity of alleged tape recorded conversation. The further request made by the petitioner/plaintiff in pleadings is only because of anxiety on his part to show the bonafides. This Court need not observe anything in this respect, because respondents / defendants get due opportunity and they can carry out consequential amendment to raise appropriate challenges. Shri Gorle, learned Counsel has pointed out that the alleged tape recorded conversation has not been placed on record and respondents /defendants had no opportunity to go through the same. 3 It is obvious that respondents / defendants will get said opportunity before they seek consequential amendment in their written statement, if necessary. The impugned order passed below Exh.77 in Regular Civil Suit No.09/2004 on 5.12.2009 by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karanja is hereby quashed and set aside, only to the extent of proposed paragraph no.4B. The petitioner / plaintiff is permitted to amend his plaint by incorporating said paragraph no.4B in his plaint by 27.08.2010. The petitioner / plaintiff shall also place on record the tape recorded conversation and shall also give its identical copy to Shri Sumant Bhandare, Advocate who represents the contesting respondents before the trial Court. The respondents/defendants shall within a period of 14 days thereafter shall be free to seek appropriate consequential amendment to their written statement. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.