THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4278 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the docket order, dated 21.7.2009, in O.S.No.14 of 2000 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, Nellore District. 3. Petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.14 of 2000. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as arrayed in the suit. 4. The plaintiffs laid suit in O.S.No.14 of 2000 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, seeking partition of the suit schedule property. While so, when the learned counsel for the plaintiffs wanted to mark Will dated 7.12.1959, Mortgage Deed dated 27.3.1967 and the Voters List of Nallapreddipalli Village, learned counsel for the defendants raised an objection to the effect that it is not pleaded in the plaint about the presence of the above said documents and without pleadings no evidence can be permitted to be let in. 5. In this regard, the Court below observed that it is an elementary principle that without any pleadings, no evidence can be looked into. However, it is stated that the plaintiffs have no claim or right under the Will or Mortgage deed. Plaintiffs contention was only to establish that there was no partition by the date of execution of the Will and the Mortgage deed. But, the contention of the defendants was that the property was already partitioned. The Court below recorded a finding that there is no necessity to mention in the plaint about the existence of Will or Mortgage deed and the objection raised by the defendants is untenable. This approach of the Court below, while noticing that it is an elementary principle that no evidence without pleadings can be looked into, cannot be countenanced. Even, the contents of the Mortgage Deed and the Will are not discussed, except saying that no right has been claimed by the plaintiffs. This approach made by the Court below is unreasonable. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the docket order dated 21.7.2009 passed in O.S.No.14 of 2000 is arbitrary and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned docket order dated 21.7.2009 is set aside. It is made clear that it is always open for the plaintiffs to seek amendment of the plaint explaining the purpose of the documents sought to be marked. The defendants may resist the same by way of filing a written statement and the Court below may consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. If the amendment is allowed, probably the plaintiffs are entitled to make a fresh application for the purpose of marking the above documents viz., Will dated 7.12.1959, Mortgage Deed dated 27.3.1967, voters list etc. 6. With the above observations and direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 07.06.2010. NOTE: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4278 of 2009 07.06.2010 (Msr)