ORDER
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
1. The plaintiffs opposite party first set have been substituted in place of the original plaintiff. Some of the defendants on coming to know of this, challenged. The Court stayed its order permitting substitution. It initiated enquiry in terms of Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC. Plaintiffs opposite part first set claim to be nephews of original plaintiff. While leading evidence in support of their claim, they came up with a gift deed purportedly executed by the original plaintiff which contained a statement allegedly made by the original plaintiff showing the present plaintiffs opposite party first set to be her nephews. On this document being led in evidence, the objecting defendant wanted to amend his rejoinder thereby challenging the validity of this document and the statements contained therein. He alternatively prayed that this application of his may be treated as a rejoinder to the document brought in evidence. It is not disputed that this document had not earlier been referred to in any pleadings of the party and it was brought in evidence for the first time in course of the enquiry. Unfortunately, the trial Court rejected both the prayers of the objecting defendant which has brought the defendant to this Court.
2. The contesting plaintiff opposite party and some other defendants have appeared and have been heard.
3. Mr. K. N. Chaubey, learned senior counsel appearing to oppose this application submits that the defendant-petitioner has already instituted a separate suit challenging the said gift deed. As such, there is no necessity for him to file the rejoinder or amend the rejoinder already filed as against, the gift deed in question.
4. On behalf of petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner had no earlier notice of this document. This document was brought on record for the first time in course of the enquiry aforesaid. He was, thus, entitled to challenge the said documents and the statements made therein by fresh pleadings and then he was entitled to lead evidence to impeach the validity and correctness of the said document and the statement made therein. Refusal to permit the petitioner from doing so would be gross violation of principles of natural justice apart from serious procedural infirmities causing great prejudice to his client.
5. Having considered the matter, in my view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and this revision application is liable to succeed.
6. Needless to point out that is in the Pleading a fact is pleaded then the other side has every opportunity to rebut the same in its rejoinder. Evidence is not in support of the pleadings. They cannot be dehors the pleadings. In the present case, the gift deed was not referred to in any of the pleadings earlier made.
7. The Court admitted it evidence. The moment this was done, the other side has to be given as a matter of right a chance to contradict the same first by an appropriate rejoinder and then by leading evidence in support of its rejoinder. A party cannot be permitted to say that I have sprung a surprise, you cannot plead against it but may lead some evidence as you wish, for no evidence can be led in absence of pleadings.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, this civil revision application is allowed and the impugned orders is set aside.