Judgment Prakash Taita, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 20th December, 2004 by which the petitioners-defendants application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC was dismissed by the trial Court. 3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiff in his plaint very specifically pleaded that defendant got the sale deed executed in his favour from the plaintiff without paying any consideration for issusaid sale of property and he also pleaded that the defendant-petitioner committed fraud and got the deed executed by mis-representing the plaintiff that it is the mortgaged deed. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner inspite of the fact that, it was a case of the plaintiff himself that the sale deed is without consideration, still the Court has not framed any issue so far as challenge to sale deed is a ground of deed being without consideration. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court framed land, still the defendant will have to case the sale deed is declared illegal and null then whetherdefendant-petitioner is entitled to decree of Rs. 1,59,695/-alongwith interest. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, by impugned order, the trial Court even observed that this will be burden of petitioner-defendant to prove that said consideration was paid. According to learned Counsel for e ner, it will mean that even if the laintiff will fail to prove that o consideration was paid for sale of theNo. 3, which is only that irove that he has paid the co sideration for the sale of the property. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the above reasons, the issue proposed by e 4.ner should have been framed by the trial Court.I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is true that there is no specific mention in the issue No. 1 that the sale deed was executed without consideration, but the issue is required to be read in the light of the pl ading. It is true that there is no specific mention in the issue No. 1 that the sale deed was executed without consideration, but the issue is required to be read in the light of the pl ading. When registered document is challenged, it is the party who challenges the document is requir d to prove his case on the basis of the fact pleaded in the plaint and in this case when one of the component of the alleged rau is non-payment of the consideration by the defendant then certainly the said plea is very much clu eo ot want to press this plea about sale without Court. Assuming for the sake of arguments that pla by the defendant to the plaintiff cannot beconsideration and he failed to establish that allegatiotian still Court find the sale deed illegal and null onother grounds, the question of non-payment of consideratio in the issue No. 1 already framed by the trial available to the plaintiff as that will amount to consciously relinquishing the allegation of absence fconsideration for the sale deed. final5. ew of the reasons when both the parties led thei evidence and the case has been fixed f r 6.aarguments and the arguments were going on and if the Cou t has not framed the issue as proposed by the pl intiff , I do not find that either of the party may suffer any prejudice. ew of the , I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Court below. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed.