JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Shome, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.07.2014 passed by learned Munsiff, Udalguri in Title Suit No.7/2012 turning down the prayer of the plaintiffs for calling one Ranjit Daimary to bring a document in his custody on record in regard to relinquishment of title to the land. The aforesaid application was filed after examination and cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2. It emerges from the arguments of learned counsel for the parties that altogether seven affidavits under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs out of which PWs 1 and 2 have already been cross-examined and the suit was pending for cross-examination of PWs 3 to 7. At that stage, plaintiffs made a prayer for calling Sri Ranjit Daimary to bring a document on record and such a prayer was opposed by the learned counsel for the defendants. The learned trial court considering the rival contention of the parties held that prayer of the plaintiffs is liable to be rejected and accordingly it was rejected. 3. Mr. A.R. Shome, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the document sought to be brought on record by calling one Ranjit Daimary is essential for deciding the matter in dispute and so because of the impugned order the plaintiffs have been seriously prejudiced. 4. Per contra, Ms. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the opposite parties, would argue that the documents sought to be brought on record by the plaintiffs are beyond pleadings and no mention is there in regard to the aforesaid document in the plaint. In that view of the matter, the document cannot be brought on record as it is admittedly beyond the pleadings. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials brought on record, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs did not get the plaint amended before bringing some additional facts on record. Unless and until there is pleading in respect of certain fact or a document there is no question of allowing plaintiffs to lead evidence in regard to such fact. Unless and until there is pleading in respect of certain fact or a document there is no question of allowing plaintiffs to lead evidence in regard to such fact. This is because it is established law that no amount of evidence can be led which is beyond pleadings. The learned Munsiff in that view of the matter has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for calling one Ranjit Daimary as witness for the purpose of producing an alien document. 6. The revision petition, therefore, is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. 7. Interim order, if any, stands automatically vacated.