JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. When the plaintiff's evidence was going on, the plaintiff submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C which was allowed by the trial court on 22.7.2008. The plaintiff also filed one application for amendment of the plaint to plead certain facts which were in relation to the documents which were taken on record by the order of the same date, i.e. 22.7.2008. The amendment application was rejected by the trial court. Hence this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. The plaintiff's contention is that he pleaded the facts in relation to the documents which were taken on record by the trial court's order of the same date but he denied pleadings on the ground that the plaintiff cannot plead anything about the document. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said view of the trial court is erroneous in law as the pleadings can be with respect to the question of fact. How those documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the question of fact between the parties, is the question of fact and can be taken in pleadings so that the defendant may file reply to those pleadings. It is also submitted that some of averments made in the proposed amendment are to make the sequence complete. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the trial court has already commenced the trial, therefore, the documents cannot be taken on record. It is also submitted that necessary facts are already pleaded in the original pleadings and there is no reason for giving more pleadings. It is also submitted that some new facts have been pleaded which have no relevance. 5. So far as the trial court's observation that the plaintiff cannot plead any fact in relation to the documents, is erroneous in law as without pleadings about the documents, there may be difficulty in knowing the case of the plaintiff even for the court and that may prejudice the defendant and may also result into confusion and the court will be deprived of knowing the facts about the documents from the pleadings and may not know the reference in which the documents have been placed on record. 6. 6. After going through the contents of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C, it appears that the plaintiff has pleaded the facts in relation to the documents taken on record with certain facts, which according to the plaintiff, is to make the sequence complete and to avoid confusion. If the said pleading is not made part of the plaint then that may also result into no benefit to any body but allowing that pleadings, will advance the cause of justice as the defendant will also get the opportunity to rebut the facts stated in the amended pleadings. Otherwise also, if some of the part of the pleadings contain the facts relating to the documents which were allowed to be produced by the court by the same order dated 22.7.2008, then there was no reason to dis-allow the amendment which is explaining the existing fact which is pleaded by the plaintiff. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 22.7.2008 by which application for amendment was refused, is set aside. The application for amendment is allowed.Petition allowed. *******