ORDER : G. RADHA RANI, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner – plaintiff aggrieved by the order of dismissal of I.A.No.350 of 2017 in O.S.No.122 of 1997 dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. I.A.No.350 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner – plaintiff seeking permission to adduce oral and documentary evidence to substantiate his claim in respect of the amended item No.5 of “B” schedule property as per the amended plaint dated 10.04.2003 filed in the subject suit. The plaintiff filed an affidavit in support of the application stating that he filed O.S.No.755/1991 (old), 122/1997 (new) on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against defendants 1 and 2 for partition and separate possession of A & B schedule properties. The item No.5 of “B” schedule property was described in the plaint as “One Hot Mixing Plant at Mansoorabad in Rangareddy District along with land value of Rs.7,00,000/-”. A preliminary decree directing partition of A & B schedule properties was passed on 26.10.1998. Against which, the defendant No.1 preferred appeal vide C.C.C.A.No.39 of 1999 on the file of the High Court. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1956 of 1998 for final decree proceedings and also filed I.A.No.2791 of 2000 for assessing the value of item No.5 of “B” schedule property. However, the Court dismissed I.A.No.2791 of 2000 vide order dated 20.02.2001 by holding that the land was not covered in item No.5 of the “B” schedule. The petitioner preferred C.R.P.No.1244 of 2001 against the said order. The same was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2003. Thereafter, he filed an amendment application in C.C.C.A.No.39 of 1999 for amending the description of item No.5 in the “B” schedule property and vide order in C.M.P.No.4580 of 2003 dated 31.03.2003, the High Court allowed the amendment application permitting him to amend the description of item No.5 of “B” schedule property by incorporating the description and extent of the land. Pursuant to the above, he filed the amended plaint in the subject suit on 10.04.2003 by correctly amending the description of item No.5 of “B” schedule property as land bearing revenue Survey No.66/10/B, Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal (formerly Hyderabad East Taluk), Rangareddy District, totally admeasuring Ac.1-11 guntas along with Hot Mixing Plant embedded thereon with its boundaries. Pursuant to the above, he filed the amended plaint in the subject suit on 10.04.2003 by correctly amending the description of item No.5 of “B” schedule property as land bearing revenue Survey No.66/10/B, Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal (formerly Hyderabad East Taluk), Rangareddy District, totally admeasuring Ac.1-11 guntas along with Hot Mixing Plant embedded thereon with its boundaries. However, the defendants did not file their written statement to the said amended plaint dated 10.04.2003. The legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 also did not file their written statement to the amended plaint even after having come on record as legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed C.C.C.A.No.39 of 1999 vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2004 confirming the preliminary partition decree in O.S.No.122 of 1997 dated 26.10.1998. The Civil Appeal No.3855/2006 filed by defendant No.1 and his legal representatives 3 to 9 before the Hon’ble Apex Court was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2010. A review petition preferred by the defendants was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.04.2011. As such, the preliminary judgment and decree dated 26.10.1998 attained finality. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2889 of 2012 in final decree proceedings in the subject suit seeking amendment of Item No.5 of “B” schedule property in the preliminary judgment and decree in O.S.No.122 of 1997 dated 26.10.1998 in accordance with the amended plaint dated 10.04.2003 and the Court allowed I.A.No.2889 of 2012 vide order dated 28.08.2013. Aggrieved by the said order in I.A.No.2889 of 2012 dated 28.08.2013, the defendants preferred C.R.P.No.4293 of 2013 before the High Court contending that the preliminary judgment and decree dated 26.10.1998 could not be automatically amended incorporating the amended description of item No.5 of “B” schedule property without the plaintiff adducing evidence to substantiate his claim over the said item of the property. The High Court was pleased to allow C.R.P.No.4293 of 2013 vide order dated 29.09.2015 holding that the plaintiff was not automatically entitled to incorporate the amended item No.5 of “B” schedule property in the preliminary judgment and decree dated 26.10.1998 without adducing evidence to prove his claim. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3062 of 2016 preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2017. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3062 of 2016 preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2017. As such left with no alternative, but to adduce evidence in the subject suit itself to prove and substantiate his legitimate and bonafide claim in respect of item No.5 of “B” schedule property, the petitioner filed an application seeking permission of the Court to adduce evidence in respect of said item No.5 of “B” schedule property as per the amended plaint dated 10.04.2003 filed in the subject suit. 3. The respondent No.4 on behalf of respondents 3 to 7, the legal representatives of defendant No.1 filed counter affidavit contending that the orders relating to subject property sought to be amended attained finality twice in the eye of law. First, when the plaintiff sought to include the said property by way of filing objections and seeking directions to the Advocate Commissioner for proceedings in final decree and when the Court rejected the request on 20.02.2001 as per the orders in I.A.No.2791 of 2000 in I.A.No.1956 of 1998 in O.S.No.122 of 1997. The matter was carried in revision before the High Court in C.R.P.No.1244 of 2001 and the said revision was also dismissed by the High Court. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner – plaintiff indulged in filing an amendment petition to amend item No.5 of “B” schedule property of plaint, which admittedly was a movable property and did not include any immovable property. The said amendment was allowed by the High Court at Appellate stage. However, it has to be noted that the amendment allowed by itself would not create any right in the property. Hence, the same was not opposed. Further, the petitioner – plaintiff did not amend the plaint as required by law. The proceedings relating to amendment had also not been carried out as per law within the time prescribed by law. Thereafter, the petitioner – plaintiff preferred I.A.No.2889 of 2012 in O.S.No.122 of 1997 seeking amendment of item No.5 of “B” schedule property in the preliminary judgment and decree. The same was allowed by the Court on 28.08.2013. The matter was carried in revision vide C.R.P.No.4293 of 2013, which was allowed on 29.09.2015. The petitioner – plaintiff carried the matter to the Hon’ble Apex Court vide S.L.P. (C).No.3062 of 2016, which was dismissed on 23.02.2017. Thus, the matter attained finality. The same was allowed by the Court on 28.08.2013. The matter was carried in revision vide C.R.P.No.4293 of 2013, which was allowed on 29.09.2015. The petitioner – plaintiff carried the matter to the Hon’ble Apex Court vide S.L.P. (C).No.3062 of 2016, which was dismissed on 23.02.2017. Thus, the matter attained finality. The petitioner – plaintiff could not be permitted to re-open the subject. As such, the petition was not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Basing on such averments, the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad heard the learned counsel representing both the parties and dismissed the petition. 5. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner – plaintiff preferred this revision. 6. Heard Ms.Anupriya, learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff, Sri C.V.L.N.Murthy, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7 and Sri Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for respondents 8 to 11. 7. The respondents 8 to 11 sailed with the petitioner – plaintiff. 8. The contentions of both the said learned counsel representing the petitioner – plaintiff as well as the respondents 8 to 11 was that the order of dismissal of I.A.No.2791 of 2000 dated 20.02.2001 passed in the subject suit including the order of dismissal in C.R.P.No.1244 of 2001 dated 22.01.2003 passed by the High Court were virtually infructuous and inconsequential in the light of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court vide orders in C.M.P.No.4580 of 2003 in C.C.C.A.No.39 of 1999 dated 31.03.2003 granted permission to the petitioner – plaintiff to amend the description of item No.5 of “B” schedule property and pursuant to the said orders dated 31.03.2003, the petitioner – plaintiff carried out the amendment of the description of item No.5 of the “B” schedule property vide amended plaint dated 10.04.2003. In the final decree proceedings, the petitioner – plaintiff filed I.A.No.2889 of 2012 seeking amendment of item No.5 of “B” schedule property. The Court allowed the said I.A. Aggrieved with the orders in I.A.No.2889 of 2012 dated 28.08.2013, the respondents 3 to 7 – defendants 3 to 7 preferred C.R.P.No.4293 of 2013. This Court allowed the CRP vide order dated 29.09.2015 observing that mere amendment of the description of item No.5 of “B” schedule property in the plaint would not entitle the petitioner to seek amendment of item No.5 of “B” schedule property in the preliminary judgment and decree dated 28.08.2013. This Court allowed the CRP vide order dated 29.09.2015 observing that mere amendment of the description of item No.5 of “B” schedule property in the plaint would not entitle the petitioner to seek amendment of item No.5 of “B” schedule property in the preliminary judgment and decree dated 28.08.2013. On the other hand, the Court observed that a fresh finding was required in respect of item No.5 of “B” schedule property. An entire reading of the orders in C.R.P.No.4293 of 2013 dated 29.09.2015 would not disclose that the Court observed that the right, title and entitlement of the petitioner – plaintiff would stand extinguished qua item No.5 of “B” schedule property. On the other hand, the Court emphatically observed that a fresh finding was required to be given in respect of amended property covered under item No.5 of “B” schedule. Aggrieved with the aforesaid orders in C.R.P.No.4293 of 2013 dated 29.09.2015, the petitioner – plaintiff carried the matter in appeal to the Hon’ble Apex Court vide S.L.P. (C).No.3062 of 2016. The said appeal was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 23.02.2017 granting liberty to the petitioners to take out such remedies as would be available to them in accordance with law as far as the land in item No.5 of “B” schedule property of the plaint is concerned. A fresh finding in respect of item No.5 of “B” schedule property could be given only after trial was conducted by the trial court in respect of the amended property. The disputed issues pertaining to item No.5 of “B” schedule property should be adjudicated in the subject suit itself without driving the petitioner – plaintiff to file a fresh suit or separate proceedings in respect of item No.5 of “B” schedule property. There was no statutory provision either in the Code of Civil Procedure or in the Civil Rules of Practice prohibiting the petitioner – plaintiff from adducing additional evidence. A perverse finding was recorded by the trial court violating the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and prayed to set aside the order of dismissal of I.A.No.350 of 2017 in O.S.No.122 of 1997 dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 9. A perverse finding was recorded by the trial court violating the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and prayed to set aside the order of dismissal of I.A.No.350 of 2017 in O.S.No.122 of 1997 dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7 on the other hand contended that there was no illegality or perversity in the order of the trial court to set aside the same. The suit was filed for partition showing the immovable properties in Schedule "A" and movable properties in Schedule "B". The amendment was sought for impleading an immovable property of Ac.1-11 guntas of land along with the movable property in item No.5 of "B" schedule property. The said property was not a joint family property. There were no pleadings in support of the said amendment. Evidence could be adduced only when there were pleadings in respect of the said property. Without any pleadings or issues, no evidence could be adduced. Item No.5 of "B" schedule property went through four rounds of litigation. The judgment of the trial court merged with the judgments of the higher Courts. No document was filed by the petitioner - plaintiff to show that item No.5 of "B" schedule property was an immovable property. Order II Rule 2 of CPC would mandate that the plaintiff should include entire claim and could not split claims. Item No.5 of "B" schedule property was not shown as joint family property at the time of filing of the suit. It was now being shown as an immovable property 33 months after the decree. The confirmation of the preliminary decree by the High Court in C.C.C.A.No.39 of 1999 was without including the amended portion. The petitioner - plaintiff and the respondents 8 to 11 were drawing twisted inference to the finding of the High Court in C.R.P.No.4293 of 2013 dated 29.09.2015. The petitioner - plaintiff could not adduce evidence in the already adjudicated suit and prayed to dismiss the revision. 10. Now the point for consideration in this revision is whether the trial court committed any illegality in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner - plaintiff to adduce additional evidence in O.S.No.122 of 1997 and whether the same is liable to be set aside? 11. 10. Now the point for consideration in this revision is whether the trial court committed any illegality in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner - plaintiff to adduce additional evidence in O.S.No.122 of 1997 and whether the same is liable to be set aside? 11. The facts of the case would disclose that there is a chequered history and the matter went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court several times. The petitioner - plaintiff filed O.S.No.755 of 1991 (Old), 122 of 1997 (New) against the defendants 1 and 2 for partition and separate possession of A & B schedule properties. The petitioner - plaintiff is the younger brother of defendants 1 and 2. "A" schedule property was a house and "B" schedule properties were movable properties. Item No.5 of the "B" schedule property was shown as one Hot Mixing Plant at Mansoorabad in Rangareddy District along with land value of Rs.7,00,000/-. A preliminary decree was passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad directing partition of A & B schedule properties on 26.10.1998. The defendant No.1 preferred an appeal vide C.C.C.A.No.39 of 1999 against the preliminary judgment and decree in O.S.No.122 of 1997. I.A.No.1956 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner - plaintiff for final decree proceedings. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed vide I.A.No.1956 of 1998 for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. The petitioner - plaintiff filed I.A.No.2791 of 2000 raising objections to the Advocate Commissioner's report stating that while executing the warrant, the Commissioner failed to value item No.5 of "B" schedule property consisting of land in Survey No.66/10/B admeasuring Ac.1-11 guntas in Mansoorabad Village of Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. The said petition was dismissed by the Court observing that the plaint "B" schedule property was referred as one Hot Mixing Plant with its land value, which would literally mean that the Hot Mixing Plant with its occupied portion, but not the entire extent of Ac.1-11 guntas. The Hot Mixing Plant would not occupy more than 3 or 4 square yards when it is embedded in the earth. The land covered by Survey No.66/10/B to an extent of Ac.1-11 guntas was not the subject matter of the suit at the time of trial, when the suit was adjudicated. The Hot Mixing Plant would not occupy more than 3 or 4 square yards when it is embedded in the earth. The land covered by Survey No.66/10/B to an extent of Ac.1-11 guntas was not the subject matter of the suit at the time of trial, when the suit was adjudicated. The copy of the plaint in O.S.No.511 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, East and North, Rangareddy District would indicate that the ownership of the land was not transferred in favor of respondent No.1. The plaintiff or the defendant No.2 could not contend that the said land belonged to joint family. At that stage, it could not be decided as to whether the said property belonged to the joint family or that it was purchased by defendant No.1 with his own income. As such, the Commissioner rightly refused to value the landed property. It was also further observed that the plaintiff referred item No.5 treating it as movable property, as he wanted the value of Hot Mixing Plant when it is embedded into the earth. Hence, the plaintiff used the phrase Hot Mixing Plant with its land value. The land value at that place would be restricted to the actual portion of the land which physically accommodated the Hot Mixing Plant. As such, the petitioner - plaintiff was not entitled to the relief prayed for. 12. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner - plaintiff preferred C.R.P.No.1244 of 2001. The said C.R.P. was dismissed on 22.01.2003 holding that the II Additional Chief Judge considered the material placed on record in right perspective and dismissed the application. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff, who was the respondent No.1 in C.C.C.A.No.39 of 1999 filed C.M.P.No.4580 of 2003 for amending the plaint in O.S.No.122 of 1997 under Section 151 of CPC by incorporating the land bearing Survey No.66/10/B of Mansoorabad Village admeasuring Ac.1-11 guntas along with Hot Mixing Plant embedded thereon in item No.5 of the "B" schedule, pending the C.C.C.A. The Court before issuing notice to the respondents in the said petition itself allowed the application. However, the High Court dismissed C.C.C.A.No.39 of 1999 vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2004 without any discussion with regard to the amended plaint incorporating Ac.1-11 guntas in "B" schedule property. However, the High Court dismissed C.C.C.A.No.39 of 1999 vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2004 without any discussion with regard to the amended plaint incorporating Ac.1-11 guntas in "B" schedule property. Against the said judgment and decree passed in C.C.C.A.No.39 of 1999, the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 filed Civil Appeal No.3855 of 2006 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2010. The review petition preferred by the LRs of defendant No.1 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as per the order dated 13.04.2011. As such, the preliminary judgment and decree dated 26.10.1998 attained finality. 13. The petitioner - plaintiff filed I.A.No.2889 of 2012 in the final decree proceedings seeking amendment of item No.5 of "B" schedule in accordance with the amended plaint dated 10.04.2003. The said petition was allowed by the Court vide order dated 28.08.2013. 14. Aggrieved by the said order, the LRs of defendant No.1 preferred C.R.P.No.4293 of 2013. This Court in the said order observed that: "Only the plaint filed by respondent No.1 - plaintiff in O.S.No.122 of 1997 (to the extent of substituting item No.5 of "B" schedule (movable property) with the immovable property indicated in para-6 above) came to be amended without any pleading in the body of the plaint for partition of the immovable property substituted in the place of movable property in item No.5 of "B" schedule property as it originally stood. There was no evidence seeking partition of the immovable property included in item No.5 of "B" schedule by respondent No.1 and no argument was addressed in regard thereto by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff. There was no discussion in the judgment dated 30.09.2004 in C.C.C.A.No.39 of 1999 as to the entitlement of the respondent No.1 to the partition of this item specifically. The result of this is that, notwithstanding the fact that C.M.P.No.4580 of 2003 was allowed and the immovable property mentioned in para-6 came to be substituted in the place of movable property mentioned in item No.5 of plaint "B" schedule, only the decree of the trial court was confirmed and there was no decree in the C.C.C.A in favor of respondents No.1 in respect of the substituted immovable property in Item No.5 of "B" schedule at all. Infact, there could not have been any decree in favor of respondents No.1 in respect of this item in this C.C.C.A, since it was not an appeal preferred by him and it was an appeal preferred by petitioner No.1." 15. This Court in the above revision only observed that without a fresh finding in regard to the substituted property, the respondent No.1 - plaintiff was not entitled for inclusion of the said item in the preliminary decree. But not directed the trial court to record any fresh finding with regard to the substituted property. 16. The SLP filed by the plaintiff vide S.L.P. (C).No.3062 of 2016 against the order in C.R.P.No.4293 of 2013 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court observing that there were no valid legal grounds for interference, but however noted that the petitioners were at liberty to take such remedies as may be available to them, in accordance with law, in so far as the land in item No.5 of plaint "B" schedule is concerned. 17. Thereafter, the petitioner - plaintiff filed the present petition seeking permission to adduce oral and documentary evidence to prove his rights over the amended suit schedule "B" property. The trial court observed that there was no preliminary decree at all for the substituted property. There was nothing on record to show that amendment was carried out by specific pleadings in the original plaint and that an opportunity was given to the contesting respondents to show that it was not a joint family property but was a self-acquired property. In the absence of any pleadings by both the parties claiming substantial rights over the property, it was not possible to adjudicate the lis. It is the fundamental principle of law that both the parties were required to prove their respective claims before the Court on the basis of pleadings and evidence. As on that date, there were no pleadings by the petitioner - plaintiff to show as to how and when the substituted property became part of the joint family property. The respondent No.2 in his application made it clear that the defendant No.1 purchased the property and filed O.S.No.511 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, East and North, Rangareddy District and the said suit was compromised. The respondents 3 to 7 not admitted that the substituted property was the joint family property. The respondent No.2 in his application made it clear that the defendant No.1 purchased the property and filed O.S.No.511 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, East and North, Rangareddy District and the said suit was compromised. The respondents 3 to 7 not admitted that the substituted property was the joint family property. Serious questions of substantial rights of parties can be decided only on the basis of pleadings and not on the basis of affidavit filed in support of the petition filed under Section 151 of CPC. Substantial legitimate rights in the property cannot be adjudicated in the interlocutory application and that the same can be adjudicated only when the pleadings were available and trial was conducted by giving an opportunity to both sides for adducing evidence. 18. The trial court also further observed that there was no quarrel with the legal proposition that any number of preliminary decrees could be passed in a suit for partition and shares could be adjusted till passing of final decree. But in the case on hand, there was no preliminary decree passed for substituted property and now by filing the present petition, the petitioner was seeking relief to adjudicate his rights for the substituted property without any pleadings. 19. There is no dispute or quarrel with the proposition that any number of preliminary decrees could be passed particularly in partition suits when after the preliminary decree, some parties die and shares of other parties were augmented. But the dispute in the present case is not about the increase or decrease in shares due to the death or birth of the parties. The issue is when a property, which was not initially included in the plaint was subsequently added by way of amendment, whether any evidence can be permitted to be adduced with regard to the said property when there were no pleadings to that effect. Pleadings are the foundation of the case and it is a well settled principle of law that no amount of evidence can be looked into on a plea which was never put forward. Evidence without corresponding pleading should be ignored, as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bachan Singh v. Kartar Singh and Others , [ AIR 2002 SC 64 ] and Vijay Kumar v. TN State Transport Corporation , [ (1995) 4 SCC 229 ] . Evidence without corresponding pleading should be ignored, as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bachan Singh v. Kartar Singh and Others , [ AIR 2002 SC 64 ] and Vijay Kumar v. TN State Transport Corporation , [ (1995) 4 SCC 229 ] . As such, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial court to set aside the same. 20. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in I.A.No.350 of 2017 in O.S.No.122 of 1997, dated 22.11.2019. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.