Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arose from orders passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.8853/2013, a suit for recovery of Rs.92,71,000 with interest at 18% per annum. The petitioner, a proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor, sued the respondent-defendant for money recovery. The defendant in his written statement alleged cash payments of Rs.10,00,000 on 13.07.2011 and Rs.19,00,000. Later, the defendant sought amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to plead that he had paid a total of Rs.50,00,000. The Trial Court rejected that amendment application, and the High Court dismissed the defendant's writ petition in W.P.No.43830/2016 on 17.08.2021, affirming the rejection. Thereafter, the defendant, as DW-1, filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The plaintiff discovered that paragraphs 10 to 12 of that affidavit stated that the plaintiff had received Rs.53,00,000, a fact beyond the written statement's pleadings. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC and Rule 3(2) of Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, seeking to strike off paragraphs 10 to 12 of DW-1's affidavit. The plaintiff also filed applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 to recall DW-1 for cross-examination and under Section 151 CPC to reopen the case. The Trial Court rejected these applications by orders dated 08.04.2022 and 12.04.2022. The core legal issue was whether the plaintiff's application to strike off portions of DW-1's affidavit evidence was permissible. The petitioner's counsel argued that when there is no pleading, the defendant cannot introduce such facts in evidence, and evidence beyond pleadings cannot be looked into. Reliance was placed on Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel v. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited, Smt. Nalini Sunder v. Sri. G.V. Sunder, and Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal. The respondent's counsel argued that DW-1 had not stated anything from the rejected amendment and that there is no provision to file an application seeking to strike off evidence, seeking dismissal. The High Court examined the object of pleadings and issues, quoting from Bachhaj Nahar that pleadings and issues ensure litigants come to trial with clearly defined issues and prevent cases being expanded or grounds shifted during trial. It also referred to the principle that no amount of evidence on a plea not put forward in pleadings can be looked into to grant relief. The Court noted that the amendment to plead Rs.50,00,000 had been rejected and affirmed, yet DW-1's affidavit stated Rs.53,00,000, making paragraphs 10 to 12 beyond pleadings. The available judgment text sets out the question and reasoning but is truncated before recording a final operative order; the Court was considering whether the Trial Court's rejection was legally sustainable.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Pleadings and Proof - Evidence Beyond Pleadings Inadmissible - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI Rule 16; Order XVIII Rule 17 - In a suit for recovery, defendant's written statement pleaded payments of Rs.10,00,000 and Rs.19,00,000 only, and an amendment to plead total Rs.50,00,000 was rejected and affirmed in W.P.No.43830/2016; DW-1's affidavit of examination-in-chief stated payment of Rs.53,00,000 - The High Court observed that paragraphs 10 to 12 of DW-1's affidavit were beyond pleadings and cannot be looked into - Held that no amount of evidence on a plea not raised in pleadings can be considered; pleadings must define issues and prevent shifting of grounds (Paras 5-8). B) Civil Procedure - Striking Out Pleadings or Evidence - Scope of Order VI Rule 16 and Section 151 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VI Rule 16, Section 151; Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, Rule 3(2) - Plaintiff filed application to strike off paragraphs 10 to 12 of DW-1's affidavit evidence, invoking Order VI Rule 16 and inherent powers - The Trial Court rejected the application, which the plaintiff challenged under Article 227 - The High Court examined whether striking off affidavit evidence is permissible and reiterated that evidence beyond pleadings cannot be used to make out a case absent foundation in pleadings - Held that a party cannot make out a case on the basis of evidence for which no foundation is laid in pleadings (Paras 6-9). C) Civil Procedure - Recall of Witness and Reopening of Case - Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XVIII Rule 17, Section 151 - Plaintiff sought recall of DW-1 for cross-examination and reopening of the case after DW-1's affidavit introduced unpleaded payment facts - Trial Court rejected those applications without assigning reasons - The High Court considered the challenge and examined the legal principles on pleadings and proof - The available text does not record the final order on the recall application (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner’s application for striking off paragraphs 10 to 12 of the affidavit evidence of DW-1 is permissible under law.
Law Points
- Pleadings define scope of trial
- no amount of evidence can prove a case not set up in pleadings
- evidence beyond pleadings cannot be looked into
- affidavit evidence cannot introduce unpleaded facts
- Order VI Rule 16 CPC provides striking out pleadings
- Section 151 CPC inherent powers
- Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC recall of witness
- Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction
