( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1035 OF 2010 Ujawala w/o Vijayprakash Tambhale PETITIONER VERSUS Baburao s/o Gunasa Lalpotu & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th April, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The respondents No. 2 to 5 are original defendants No. 2 to 5. They filed amendment application (Exh-127) in suit (Spl. C.S. No. 46/2004). They had already pleaded in their written statement that they are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration. They alleged that they agreed to ( 2 ) purchase the suit property by virtue of an agreement of sale dated 16th March, 2000, executed by the original defendant No. 1/respondent No.1. They further asserted that they had perused relevant documents including the 7/12 extract. They further alleged that in pursuance to such terms of agreement of sale, they had paid Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) on 16th March, 2000 itself. It appears that subsequently, they purchased the suit property by virtue of a registered sale- deed dated 18th November, 2003. 4. The respondents No. 2 to 5 submitted application for amendment alleging that details of such transaction of agreement of sale alongwith the details of payment made pursuant to such agreement are required to be stated. They desired to introduce paragraph No. 10A in their written statement. The trial Court allowed the amendment subject to cost of Rs. 3000/-. 5. Admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff adduced necessary evidence in support of the suit claim. The amendment application was moved after the plaintiff led the evidence. It is manifestly clear, therefore, that such amendment application could not have been entertained in view of Order- ( 3 ) VI Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and particularly Proviso appended thereto. Apart from that, the amendment is not necessary in view of the fact that the additional paragraph No. 10A proposed vide the amendment application is elaboration of the same pleadings with details of the payments, which is subject matter of evidence. It is well settled that evidence need not be pleaded. The pleadings shall consist of concise statement of facts. The respondents No. 2 to 5 may prove the facts regarding the payments and the acts done by them in pursuance to the agreement of sale, which was already pleaded by them. Such an unnecessary pleading could not have been allowed which does not add to the necessary part of the pleadings but would amount to repetition and would consist of the evidence that is to be adduced. 6. In view of foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, the respondents No. 2 to 5 have the right to lead evidence as observed hereinbefore, which is not curtailed. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp1035-2010 ( 4 )