' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.--- This appeal, with the leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment of the High Court passed on 23-2-2001, whereby the revision petition filed by the contesting respondents Nos.1 to 11, against the judgment of the District Judge, Kotli dated 31-1-2000 was accepted.
2. Facts relevant for the decision of the appeal briefly stated are that in respect of the suit land, the following three suits were filed before the trial Court.
(i) Amirullah and others v Mst. Gaboo and others.
(ii) Muhammad Naib Khan v. Amirullah Khan and others, and
(iii) Hidayatullah Khan v. Mst. Gulabo and others.
' As the subject-matter and the parties in these three suits were common therefore, all these suits were consolidated by the Sub-Judge, Kotli, During the pendency of these suits, the suit filed by Hidayatullah Khan against Mst. Gulabo was withdrawn by him, thereafter the consolidated proceedings were conducted in remaining two suits by framing common issues arising out of the pleading of the parties. The parties led their evidence for and against these issues. Ultimately the suit filed by Amirullah and others was decreed in their favour, whereas the suit filed by Muhammad Naib was dismissed. Muhammad Naib availed right of appeal before the District Judge, Kotli without success. He filed second appeal before the High Court. His appeal was accepted by the High Court and the case was remanded to .District Judge, Kotli for fresh decision.
3. The dispute which is under consideration before this Court is the outcome of an application which was initially moved to implead the present appellant in the line of defendants on the ground that Mst. Gulabo, one of the defendants in the suit, had transferred her share in the land in dispute through a sale-deed executed on 22-11-1982 in his favour. The application was allowed. The plaintiffs added present appellant as defendant in the suit but without the permission of the Court added para. 8-A in the amended plaint. An objection to this addition was for the first time raised in the High Court on the ground that the same was added without the objection of the appellant and without the prior permission of the Court. On this objection the learned counsel for the respondents moved an application seeking permission for adding para.8-A in the plaint. The High Court set aside the judgment of the District Judge on the ground that it did not contain the points for decision and reasons in support of the decision, as such remanded the case to the District Judge alongwith amendment application and objections filed in the High Court, for decision in accordance with law. The learned District Judge rejected the amendment application, however, disallowed the objection of the appellant that amendment carried out in the plaint without inviting his objection and without the prior permission of the Court be struck off. The order of the District Judge was assailed by both the parties through two separately filed revision petitions before the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court allowed the application moved by the opposite side for the amendment of the plaint and dismissed the application moved by the present appellant and remanded the case to the District Judge, Kotli for fresh decision on merits. This order of the High Court has been assailed before this Court on the ground that the present appellant has not been provided an opportunity of hearing to justify the sale-deed executed in his favour by Mst.
Gulabo by allowing him chance to file his written statement and by leading the evidence.
4. Mr. Abdul Majeed Mallick, the learned counsel for the appellants, argued that after allowing the amendment in the plaint to the respondents, it was necessary for the just decision of the case to allow his client to file his written statement. He contended that without providing his client the right to file his written statement, the evidence recorded in vacuum cannot be read for or against his client.
5. While opposing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, Raja Muhammad Siddique, the learned counsel for the respondents, defended the judgment under challenge.
6. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. In this case, as mentioned by us in the preceding paragraphs, the application for amendment was moved by the respondents to implead Muhammad Naib, appellant, as defendant in their suit.
The application to this extent was allowed by the trial Court. The plaintiff respondents without seeking any amendment in the plaint about the sale-deed which was executed in their favour, added para. 8-A in their plaint. Later on, in the High Court when this objection was raised, they formally moved another application seeking permission to add para. 8-A in the suit. Objections on this application were invited which were accordingly filed by the present appellant and the case was remanded to the District Judge for fresh decision and also for the decision of the amended application moved by the plaintiff-respondents. The learned District Judge without allowing them amendment kept intact para. 8-A in the amended plaint. When the matter came in the notice of the High Court in the revision petition the learned Judge in the High Court disapproved the view of the learned District Judge and allowed the amendment application of. The respondents and remanded the case to the District Judge for fresh decision on merits whereas when amendment was allowed in the plaint to the defendant-respondent then it was necessary for the ends of justice to provide an opportunity to the defendant-appellant to file his additional written statement. In the light of the written statement, if any, an additional issue was necessary then the Court should have framed such an issue and allow the parties to lead their evidence for and against the same. It is settled proposition of law that evidence beyond the pleadings cannot be looked into. Any evidence produced by the parties without inserting facts about the sale-deed executed in favour of the appellant in their respective pleadings cannot be looked into.
' We, therefore, allow this appeal, amend the judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the trial Court with the direction that it shall allow the appellant to file additional written statement, if any, to the extent of para. 8-A and struck any additional issues, if necessary, and allow the parties to lead any evidence in support of such additional issues. It will be proper if the trial Court take this case out of its turn for its expeditious disposal.