Case Note & Summary
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner, the plaintiff in O.S.No.8853/2013, challenging two orders passed by the Trial Court. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.92,71,000 with interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The respondent was the defendant. In his written statement, the defendant claimed that he had made payments of Rs.10,00,000 in cash on 13.07.2011 and another Rs.19,00,000 in cash, both acknowledged by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the written statement to state that he had paid a total sum of Rs.50,00,000 to the plaintiff. That amendment application was rejected by the Trial Court, and the rejection was affirmed by this Court in W.P.No.43830/2016 by order dated 17.08.2021. Later, when the defendant as DW-1 filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, he stated at paragraph 11 that the plaintiff had received Rs.53,00,000 from him. The plaintiff then filed two applications: one under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC and Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 to strike off paragraphs 10 to 12 of DW-1's affidavit evidence, and another under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC to recall DW-1 for cross-examination and reopen the case. The Trial Court, by orders dated 08.04.2022 and 12.04.2022, rejected both applications without assigning any reasons. The petitioner contended that evidence beyond pleadings cannot be looked into, and the respondent argued that there is no provision in law to file an application to strike off evidence of a party. The only question considered by the High Court was whether the petitioner's application for striking off paragraphs 10 to 12 of the affidavit evidence of DW-1 is permissible under law. The Court referred to Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, AIR 2003 Kar 86, and Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel v. S.J.R. Prime Corporation, (2024) 9 SCC 462, and reiterated that pleadings and issues define the scope of trial, and no amount of evidence on a plea not set up in the pleadings can be looked into. It held that the affidavit evidence alleging payment of Rs.53,00,000 was beyond the written statement and sought to re-introduce a plea already rejected. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders of the Trial Court, and held that the application for striking off the said affidavit paragraphs was permissible. The Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Pleadings and Evidence - Evidence beyond pleadings cannot be looked into - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Order VI Rule 16, Section 151 - The defendant's affidavit in examination-in-chief included statements of Rs.53,00,000 payment though the written statement only alleged payments of Rs.10,00,000 and Rs.19,00,000 and the amendment to claim Rs.50,00,000 was rejected and affirmed by High Court. The Trial Court rejected the plaintiff's application to strike off paragraphs 10-12 of DW-1's affidavit without assigning reasons. The High Court held that no amount of evidence on a plea not put forward in pleadings can be looked into and the application was permissible. (Paras 5-8) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Written Statement - Rejected plea cannot be introduced through evidence - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Order VI Rule 17 - Defendant sought amendment to written statement to allege total payment of Rs.50,00,000; Trial Court rejected, High Court dismissed writ petition. Later affidavit evidence alleging Rs.53,00,000 sought to re-introduce the rejected plea. The Court held evidence beyond pleadings cannot be used to make out a case. (Paras 5-6, 8) C) Civil Procedure - Examination-in-Chief by Affidavit - Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief must be confined to pleaded facts - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Order XVIII Rules 4, 5, 13 - Paragraphs beyond pleadings in examination-in-chief can be struck off. Reliance placed on Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 702. (Para 8) D) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Trial Court orders passed without reasons liable to be set aside - Constitution of India, Article 227 - The Trial Court rejected applications without assigning any reasons. The High Court held that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, such orders are unsustainable. (Paras 2, 8)
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?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders dated 08.04.2022 and 12.04.2022 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.8853/2013, and held that the petitioner's application for striking off paragraphs 10 to 12 of DW-1's affidavit evidence was permissible. The Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Law Points
- pleadings define scope of trial
- evidence beyond pleadings cannot be looked into
- no amount of evidence can prove unpleaded case
- affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief must conform to pleadings
- application for striking off evidence beyond pleadings is permissible
- trial court must give reasons for rejecting applications
- supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India
