THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4629 of 2010 (Dated:14-12-2010) Between: Ramnavami Singh Chandal and another …Petitioners A n d S.Janardhan and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4629 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 09.8.2010 passed in I.A.No.457 of 2010 in O.S.No.105 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, at Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.105 of 2005. The respondents-defendants are the owners of the land admeasuring Ac.26-14 guntas comprised in Sy.Nos.278, 279, 365 and 366 situated at Gattu Ippala Pally village of Talakonda pally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The plaintiffs pleaded that they purchased the suit schedule land under agreement of sale dated 11.4.2004 executed by the respondents-defendants and they paid Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of agreement. Subsequently, the 1st defendant received part sale consideration amounts now and then. The plaintiffs demanded the defendants to receive balance sale consideration of Rs.3,52,000/- and execute a registered sale deed. The defendants failed to execute the sale deed, despite repeated demands made by the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.4.2004. 3. The respondents-defendants filed written statement denying the execution of the agreement of sale and so also payments allegedly made pursuant to the agreement of sale. The plaintiffs adduced evidence on their behalf. They filed I.A.No.457 of 2010 under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 CPC for issue of summons to the official witnesses to give evidence on their behalf. The respondents-defendants resisted the application on the ground that the payments allegedly sought to be proved by summoning the witnesses are not pleaded in the plaint. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioners-plaintiffs cannot be permitted to summon the witnesses to prove the payments allegedly made by the plaintiffs since no pleading to that effect has been made in the plaint, and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 9.8.2010. The said order is assailed in this revision. 5. For better appreciation, I may refer para 9 of the order impugned in the revision, which reads as hereunder:- “ It is also the settled law that what is not permissible directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. The petitioners earlier have filed an I.A.No.218/2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C for permission to amend the plaint with regard to some of the payments alleged to have been made under the agreement. The said petition was contested and the same was dismissed on merits. The plea of the petitioners in the application is that he made some payments through bank cheques relating to the son of the 1st plaintiff. But the pleadings does not contain the information that the alleged payments were made through bank cheques which relating to son of the petitioner herein.” 6. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 08.10.2010. The respondents entered appearance through a counsel. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing for the respondents- defendants. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-plaintiffs submits that the petitioner specifically pleaded in the plaint that the balance due under the agreement of sale is Rs.3,52,000/- and therefore, it goes without saying that the rest of the amount covered under the agreement of sale has been paid and the said payments are required to be proved by summoning the witnesses, i.e., Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Himayatnagar Branch, and Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents- defendants submits that the plaint is silent with regard to the payments allegedly made by the petitioners or through their son. In the absence of any pleadings, the petitioners cannot be permitted to adduce any evidence. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in V.Rajeshwar v. N.Gurucharanam[1], wherein it has been held that it is needless to say that normally all essential facts are to be pleaded and when an essential fact is not pleaded, the question of letting in any evidence in relation to such plea is impermissible. 10. Indisputably, the payments sought to be proved by summoning the bank officials have not been stated in the plaint. The efforts made by the petitioners-plaintiffs to get the plaint amended by invoking provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC proved to be futile. When once application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the pleadings incorporating the part payments ended in dismissal, the petitioner cannot be permitted to summon the Branch Manager to prove the self-same fact. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 9.8.2010. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 CPC. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.14-12-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4629 of 2010 (Dated:14-12-2010) [1] 2007(1) ALT 652