It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that another wrong committed by Ld. Courts below by discarding the testimony of witnesses PW4 and PW5, who were produced by the plaintiff to show his readiness and willingness as the plaintiff has borrowed Rs.1,00,00,000/- from PW4 and Rs.1,25,00,00/- from PW5, and remaining amount of sale consideration alongwith expenses for stamp duty, registration charges, etc. had been brought by him. The Id. Courts below erred in rejecting the testimony of PW4 and PW5 on the erroneous ground that the plea of taking money from PW4 and PW5 as deposed in afÏdavit, is not finding place in the pleadings of the plaintiff. In this regard it is submitted that Order VI Rule 2 CPC says that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. The plaintiff, in the present case has specifically pleaded in para no. 7 that at that time, he was having ready cash with him so as to get the sale deed executed. The Ld. Courts below erred in concluding that the evidence of PW4 and PW5 cannot be permitted because the plaintiff has not pleaded that money had been borrowed in cheque from the aforesaid witnesses. It is settled law that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. But it is also equally well settled that pleadings shall receive a liberal construction. No pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitÝng
