JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner defendant in respondent plaintiffs O.S.No.143/2004 for a decree of possession of the subject property is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 27.06.2017 made on his two applications in IA Nos. 13 & 16 whereby the trial Court has denied leave for production of additional evidence and for expunction of the evidence of the plaintiff side to the extent the same is de hors the plaint pleadings. After service of notice, the respondent plaintiff having entered appearance through its counsel resists the writ petitions. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking the Court through the contents of his application in IA No.13 and of the affidavit supporting the same submits that the summoning and production of Income Tax records of the plaintiff would throw light on the issues to be adjudicated and their non-production would materially prejudice his defence. He further submits that the said documents are essential for deciding the nature of the transaction in question and their production would not in any way prejudice the case of the plaintiffs side. Therefore, he submits that the trial Court ought to have allowed the said application. 3. Taking the Court through the contents of his IA No.16 and of the affidavit filed in its support, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs side to the extent there is no plea concerning the same is liable to be expunged. In support of his contention, he banks upon two decisions of the Apex Court i.e., (2007) 10 SCC 21 , Kishor Kirtilal Mehta and Others v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and Others and AIR 2012 SC 264 National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and Others therefore, he submits that the trial Court fell in error in rejecting his application. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff per contra contends in justification of the impugned order stating that the documents now sought to be summoned for production by way of additional evidence being the Income Tax records of the plaintiff Church, are irrelevant to adjudication of the lis at hands, the production of these documents in the absence of their utility to the adjudication being demonstrated, cannot be insisted upon. Contending further, the question of expunging the evidence tendered by the plaintiffs side does not arise at all; expunging/striking off of the evidence of a party is a serious matter and therefore, it cannot be done just for askance. So arguing the learned counsel seeks for the dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have perused the writ petition papers. I have also adverted to the decisions cited at the Bar. 6. The contention that the Income Tax records throw light on the nature of transaction between the parties and the vinculum juris between them is prima facie is demonstrated by the petitioner side. Ordinarily, a party to a legal proceeding is entitled to produce or caused to be produced all that evidence that supports his case. The exception to this general rule and its invokability is to be shown by the one who opposes such production. Even otherwise also, the production of the said documents in no way prejudices the case of the respondent Church. Therefore, the denial of leave by the trial Court to produce additional evidence is brought with illegality. 7. The contention of the petitioner side that the respondent plaintiff has loaded the evidentiary material to the record of the case there being absolutely any pleadings and therefore, to that extent the said evidence is liable to be expunged from record is not supported by the aforesaid two rulings of the Apex Court which only reiterate the law that no amount of evidence can be looked into in the absence of plea of the party concerned. The Lord Hallsbury in the famous case of Quinn v. Leathem (1901) A.C. 495, 506 more than a century ago, observed that a case is an authority for the proposition that is actually laid therein and not for all that which would logically flow therefrom. Thus, the said rulings do not come to the aid of the petitioner. Even otherwise also no case is made out for expuntion of plaintiffs evidence on record. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that striking off the evidence is a serious matter and therefore, the power to strike off needs to be cautiously exercised. 8. There is yet another aspect to the matter of expunging of evidence from the record. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that striking off the evidence is a serious matter and therefore, the power to strike off needs to be cautiously exercised. 8. There is yet another aspect to the matter of expunging of evidence from the record. Though true it is, that no amount of evidence sans pleadings would come to the aid of the party to the litigation. But, a few exceptions are recognized to this general rule and one of them is where the parties have gone to trial with full understanding of the case of each other, the absence of plea may pale into insignificance and the evidence still may be looked into. 9. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed off; the impugned order dismissing petitioners application in IA No.13 filed under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC, 1908 is set aside and the said application is favoured granting leave to the petitioner defendant to lead additional evidence after procurement; the challenge to dismissal of application in IA No.16 filed for expunction of plaintiffs evidence on record is negatived. 10. The respondents suit in O.S.No.143/2004 being the one for a decree of possession of the subject property and about fifteen years having lapsed since its institution, the learned trial judge is requested to try and dispose off the same within an outer limit of nine months and report the disposal thereof to the Registrar (General) of this Court. 11. No costs.