ORDER Dt. 24.11.2008 — Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Defendant is the petitioner, whose daughter as plaintiff had filed the suit claiming right, title and interest based upon a will dated 5.11.1987 said to have been executed by the defendants’ mother Idan Bibi in favour of the plaintiff. Idan Bibi admittedly expired. The writ petitioners/defendants in their written statement challenged the execution of the said will which was the fulcrum of the suit claim. A device by the defendants to agitate the said will was to contend that the testator died on 5.6.1984 long back the date of the will which is 5.11.1987. This is a matter of evidence which may not require amendment of pleadings. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the amendment petition regarding date and death, this writ petition has been filed by the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties what is made clear is that when suit claim was based upon a will, that will was denied in the written statement. Both sides should prove their respective case. In that way the defendants can prove the impossibility of the execution of the will by contending so many facts. Whether each of such facts has to be pleaded is the ques¬tion. Some facts might have been obviously known to the defend¬ants and some other facts may not at that time be known. The defendants cannot prevent from submitting the later facts in course of trial. True it is that without pleading no evidence could be let on. But when once the nucleus of the disputed fact is pleaded, there is no need to plead so minutely the each and every inch of the fact connected to the nucleus. This could be appreci¬ated in the surrounding facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be provided here. Even after pleading the nucleus above mentioned, if anybody is so prevented to divulge a fact in the course of trial for the purpose of proving their respective case, then there will be failure of justice. Therefore, even without the amendment sought for by the defendants both parties in the suit should be made free to lead their evidence on the facts surrounding the pleadings. Therefore, even without the amendment sought for by the defendants both parties in the suit should be made free to lead their evidence on the facts surrounding the pleadings. When once the execution of the will was denied by the defendants then it should be made open to him to set forth certain facts as men¬tioned above in prove of his case. Similarly, the plaintiff also is free to convey the facts during evidence regarding the possi¬bility of execution of the will or the actuality of the same. To say that evidence of both side is over and argument is pending and therefore at this stage no further evidence is to let on, is again denial of opportunity in the facts and circumstances of the case. Before making a decree either way, the concerned party should be satisfied that they were given ample opportunity to lead evidence based upon their pleadings. The date of death of testator need not be pleaded because there is stout denial of execution of the will. Suffice it is to have pleaded the nucleus of the repudiation of the basis on which the claim in the plaint was made. All the facts surrounding the nucleus if expected to be pleaded it would not only become voluminous but also would amount to contents of an affidavit in the place of evidence. In this view of the matter, the lower Court is directed to permit both the parties to lead further evidence in the light of the above observation and decide the case in accordance with law as early as possible. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.