JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - The Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 in Original Suit No. 229-I of 1980 of the Court of the Munsif, Bhadrak are the Petitioners in this revision. They have challenged the order of the learned Munsif dated 10: 2-1984 allowing the petition filed by the Defendant No. 4 for sending the signature of Defendant No. 3 appearing in Ext. C-1 to be compared with his specimen signature to be obtained in Court by the expert. 2. Defendant No. 4 is the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 2. The Plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of tile and other consequential reliefs in respect of the suit land on the basis of purchase by them under a registered sale deed dated 20-3-1961 from Ananda Nath, who was the father of Defendant No. 4. The case of the contesting Defendant No. 1 is that the sale deed dated? 20-3-1961 is a collusive and inoperative document under which no title could pass to the Plaintiffs. He alleged that after the death of Angada Nath, Krishna Chandra, Defendant No. 4 became the Karta of the family and in such capacity sold the suit land to Defendant No. 3 on 15-4-1969 and 24-5-1969 from whom Defendant No. 1 had purchased the suit land. 3. Defendant No. 4 was set ex parte as inspire of summons duly served on him he did not appear in the Court nor filed? any written statement. On 25-1-1984 the hearing of the suit commenced. The Defendant No. 4 filed an application on 30-1-1984 praying to set aside the ex parte order passed against him- and for permitting him to take part in the hearing of the suit. His petition was allowed on the same day. By that time two of the witnesses had already been examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Trial was resumed and on that date two more witnesses of the Plaintiffs were examined and Defendant No. 4 got himself examined as d. w. 1. His examination was, however, not concluded on that date and it was continued and concluded on the following date. During the course of examination he exhibited some documents including one marked as Ext. C-l. Ext. C.l is dated 20.4.1971 and it purports to be a receipt executed by Mahendra Sahu, (Defendant No. 3 in this suit) to the effect that on receipt of Rs. During the course of examination he exhibited some documents including one marked as Ext. C-l. Ext. C.l is dated 20.4.1971 and it purports to be a receipt executed by Mahendra Sahu, (Defendant No. 3 in this suit) to the effect that on receipt of Rs. 3200/- he relinquished all his interest under the sale deeds dated 15-4-1969 and 24-5-1969 in favour of the Defendant No. 4. The said document was exhibited in spite of the objections raised against its admissibility, The genuineness of that document was, however, disputed by the contesting Defendant during the course of examination of his witnesses. On 2-2-1984 the case was closed so far as the contesting Defendants were concerned, whereafter an application was filed on behalf of the Defendant No. 4 for sending the disputed signature of Defendant No. 3 appearing on Ext.. C-l for comparison by an expert for which purpose it was prayed that a specimen signature be taken from Defendant No. 3. By the impugned order the learned Munsif allowed the said prayer against which this revision has been filed. 4. Before going to examine the contentions raised by the learned Counsel, appearing for the parties, it is necessary to elucidate the position of law relating to passing of an ex parte order and the effect of the same being set aside on a subsequent stage. After the summons are duly served if the Defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court is entitled to make an order that the suit be heard ex parte. The provision under Order 9, Rule 7 of the CPC is that where the Court has adjourned the ex party hearing of the suit, and the Defendant, against whom an ex parte order has been passed, at or before such hearing appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, the Court may set aside the ex parte order on such terms as to costs or otherwise, permitting him to be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the date fixed- for his appearance. It has been clearly indicated by several decisions of Supreme Court as well as by this Court that a Defendant, against whom an ex parte order has been passed under Order 9, Rule 6 of the CPC is not debarred from participating in the further proceeding of the suit, whatever remains when he make his appearance in the suit. But he would not be entitled to be relegated to the position he was occupying on the date when he was set ex parte and consequently he cannot enjoy the rights and privileges to which he was entitled to, before the ex parte order was passed against him. The only effect of the setting aside of an ex parte order under Order 9, Rule 7, CPC is to set the clock back by permitting such a Defendant to avail the opportunities he had, in the matter of contesting the suit from the state before he was -set ex parte. 5. In the present case the Defendant No. 4, who was set ex parte earlier made his appearance on 30-1-1984 at a stage when the hearing was continuing and made an application to set aside the ex parte order passed against him earlier. As he had not fiied the written statement by the date on which he was set ex parte, the ex parte order having been set aside on 30.1-1984. the Court relegated him to a position which he bad occupied before he was set ex parte, which means that he could at that stage file a written statement was entitled to take advantage of exercising all the rights to which a Defendant is entitled under the provisions of the CPC Code. He, however, did not choose to file a written? statement and got himself examined in the suit. Thus, though Defendant No. 4 was permitted to be examined he had no pleading of his own in respect of which he could lead evidence. The only pleadings in the suit were that of the Plaintiffs and Defendants Nos. 1 & 3. His evidence, therefore, is bound to be confined to the said pleadings. In other words Defendant No. 4 was free to lead evidence to prove or disprove any of the facts comprised in the pleadings of the Plaintiffs or Defendants Nos. 1 & 3. 1 & 3. His evidence, therefore, is bound to be confined to the said pleadings. In other words Defendant No. 4 was free to lead evidence to prove or disprove any of the facts comprised in the pleadings of the Plaintiffs or Defendants Nos. 1 & 3. But he could not be permitted to lead evidence on a plea which was not there before the Court. There has been no pleadings by the Plaintiffs as has been deposed to by Defendant No. 4 that the sale deeds dated 14-4-1969 and 24-5-1969 were in a sense deeds of mortgage and that there was a stipulation between the parties that on receiving back the consideration together with the interest the Defendant No. 4 would return back the property to Defendant No. 4. He also stated in his deposition that two registered agreements proved by him as Exts. A-I and B-I were executed by Mahendra, the Defendant No. 4 in his favour on the aforesaid dates. Ext. C-l was stated to be a receipt evidencing return of the consideration money by the Defendant No. 4 to Defendant No. 4 and further establishing that Defendant No. 4 had relinquished his rights to the suit properties pursuant to the terms of the agreement. There was no pleadings of either of the parties in support of the aforesaid story introduced for the first time by Defendant No. 4, while being examined in Court. It is firmly established in law that the Court should not permit evidence to be led on matters which are beyond the pleadings of the parties and even if such? evidence finds place in record the Court is not entitled to look into it for any purpose whatsoever. From the position of law as indicated earlier the Defendant No. 4 should not have been permitted to lead evidence to establish a plea which was totally absent in the pleadings of the contesting parties. Therefore, even though the Ext. C-l forms a part of the .evidence on record, it cannot be utilised in favour of either of the contesting parties. The genuineness or otherwise of such document is, therefore, irrelevant so far as the suit is concerned for? which reason purported signature of Defendant No. 4 thereon is not required to be sent to and expert for comparison with his specimen signature to be taken in Court. The genuineness or otherwise of such document is, therefore, irrelevant so far as the suit is concerned for? which reason purported signature of Defendant No. 4 thereon is not required to be sent to and expert for comparison with his specimen signature to be taken in Court. The learned Munsif has allowed the prayer of the Defendant No. 4 in this behalf without applying his judicial mind which can be said to be an irregular and illegal exercise of jurisdiction. In this view of the matter the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. I would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the impugned order and direct the learned munsif to proceed with the suit from that stage. There will be however, no order as to costs; Final Result : Allowed