under adjudication in the said Second Appeal in S.A. No.620 of 2007. So, the defendants also very much aware of the said proceedings. Hence, on considering the written statement avement, after disposal of Second Appeal, the plaintiff taken steps to produce the judgment and decree copy of suit in O.S.No. 80 of 2004. So, the reasons assigned by the plaintiff to receive the document as such is maintainable in law. But, however, as pointed out by the revision petitioners, there is no averment about the said proceedings in the plaint, but on seeing the entire pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff approached the court contending that the defendants 1 and 2 fabricated, and forgedly created a document, which needs detailed investigation. Admittedly, already the criminal proceedings are pending against defendants with regard to manipulation of document. Hence, plaintiff is to be given opportunity to prove his title over the property. Moreover, the document, which is sought to be marked is the judgment and decree copy of suit in O.S.No.80 of 2004 and it is a document relied on by the plaintiff to prove his title. Accordingly, on considering the facts of the case, the trial court rightly permitted to mark the document on the side of plaintiff, as such, is maintainable in law. The authorities relied on by the Revision
