JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the 1st Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in CMA No.25/14 of 2006/2005 arising out of Money Suit No.160 of 1999 is assailed by the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the said case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was decreed ex parte on 25.4.2005. It is submitted that the defendants after receiving notice did not file any written state¬ment for which they were set ex parte on 07.10.2004. The said order was never challenged. As the defendants did not appear the trial Court proceeded and an ex parte decree was passed on 25.4.2005 Thereafter a petition was filed under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. praying to set aside the ex parte decree. The said peti¬tion was registered as Misc. Case No.25/2006/14/2005 arising out of Money Suit No.160 of 1999. In course of hearing of the said Misc. Case, a petition was filed by the plaintiff with a prayer not to record of any evidence mainly on the grounds that the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. was a vague one, no facts having been pleaded and as no reasons were assigned with regard to non-appearance, and as such no evidence was needed to be recorded. The said petition has been rejected by the trial Court. 3. Admittedly an ex parte decree was passed on the ground of absence of the defendants. They have filed the aforesaid petition for setting aside the said ex parte decree and want to adduce evidence to substantiate their absence. The principles of substantial justice also otherwise warrant that party should not be prohibited from adducing evidence unless there are cogent reasons. According to learned counsel for the petitioner as no valid reasons were assigned in the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. there was nothing for the defendants to establish. But then the said submission goes to the merits of the case. If the defendants want to substantiate their plea and convince the Court that the ingredients under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. were satisfied, they cannot be prevented, as has rightly been held by the Court. But then the said submission goes to the merits of the case. If the defendants want to substantiate their plea and convince the Court that the ingredients under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. were satisfied, they cannot be prevented, as has rightly been held by the Court. Therefore without interfering with the impugned order, I dispose of this case with an observation that the evidence adduced by the defendants shall be confined to their pleadings, in view of the clear position of law that no parties should be permitted to lead evidence beyond the pleadings. 4. It is submitted that the matter was posted for record¬ing of evidence and due to pendency of this Writ Petition that has not been done. I therefore direct the Court below to commence recording of the evidence next week or on any other date conven¬ient to it. Petition disposed of.