1. Civil suit for recovery of money — Defendant's affidavit evidence contained statements beyond written statement — Plaintiff sought to strike off paragraphs and re-call witness. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.
Integrated Solutions – Petitioner
Versus
Sri. B.P. Eshwar Singh, S/o B.S. Pruthviraj Singh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.8286 Of 2022 (Gm-Cpc)
Decided On : 18-08-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For The Petitioner: Sri. P.D. Surana, Adv.
For The Respondent: Sri. Srinivasa C, Adv.
For The Petitioner: Sri. P.D. Surana, Adv.
For The Respondent: Sri. Srinivasa C, Adv.
There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to strike off portions of affidavit evidence for being beyond the pleadings. The remedy is to raise objections through written submissions, cross-examination, or final arguments, which the court must then consider when deciding the suit.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 16, Order XVIII Rule 4 and Section 151 - Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 - Rule 3(2) - Evidence beyond pleadings - Striking off portions of affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief - It is a settled principle that no amount of evidence can prove a case for a party who has not set up the same in his/her pleadings (Paras 6, 8, 9) - However, no mechanism is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure to strike off a portion of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on the ground that it is beyond the pleadings (Para 10) - The party aggrieved by evidence beyond pleadings has the following options: (i) raise objection before the Trial Court by filing written objections; (ii) confront the witness during cross-examination; or (iii) point out the discrepancy during final arguments (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
In a suit for recovery of money, the defendant filed a written statement claiming specific payments. A subsequent application to amend the written statement to claim a higher total payment was rejected by the Trial Court and the High Court. Despite this, the defendant, in the affidavit of examination-in-chief, stated that a sum higher than what was pleaded in the written statement had been paid. The plaintiff filed applications to strike off the relevant paragraphs of the examination-in-chief for being beyond the pleadings and sought to recall the witness for cross-examination. The Trial Court rejected the applications without assigning reasons.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court was correct in rejecting the application to strike off portions of the affidavit evidence as there is no legal provision for such a remedy at that stage. However, to prevent a miscarriage of justice and ensure the witness is subjected to cross-examination on the discrepancies, the application to recall the witness for cross-examination must be allowed.
Issues: Whether an application for striking off portions of the affidavit evidence of a witness is permissible under law on the ground that the evidence is beyond the pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: While evidence beyond pleadings cannot be looked into to grant relief, the Code of Civil Procedure does not allow for the striking off of evidence in the manner requested. The proper legal recourse is for the opposing party to object to the evidence during cross-examination or during final arguments, at which point the court is duty-bound to consider such objections and record reasons in the final order.
Result: Writ petition allowed-in-part. Application to cross-examine the witness is allowed, and the plaintiff is at liberty to raise objections as provided.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered; respondent argued no provision to strike off evidence. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Writ petition allowed in part — Application to cross-examine DW-1 allowed; plaintiff at liberty to raise objections on evidence beyond pleadings. (Para 12 , 13 )
4. Is an application to strike off portions of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on the ground that it is beyond pleadings permissible under the CPC?
No, there is no mechanism under the CPC for striking off portions of affidavit evidence; the proper course is to raise objections at appropriate stages. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. What options does a party have when the affidavit evidence of the opposite party contains statements beyond pleadings?
The party may raise objections before the trial court, point out the discrepancy during cross-examination, or raise the issue at final arguments; the court must consider such objections. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Can evidence beyond the pleadings be considered by the court?
No, it is well settled that no amount of evidence can prove a case for which there is no foundation in the pleadings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
ORDER :
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.
This writ petition is filed challenging the orders dated 12.04.2022 and 08.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.8853/2013 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).
2. Sri.P.D.Surana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in a suit filed by the petitioner- plaintiff for recovery of money, the respondent-defendant filed a written statement stating that the defendant has paid Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.19,00,000/- and later filed an application for amendment of the written statement stating that the defendant has paid Rs.50,00,000/- in total, which was rejected by the Trial Court and affirmed by this Court. However, in his affidavit of examination-in- chief, he stated that the plaintiff has received Rs.53,00,000/- from him. Hence, the plaintiff filed an application seeking to strike off paragraphs 10 to 12 of the examination-in-chief of DW-1 and also an application to re-call the order, re-call DW-1 for cross-examination and permit the plaintiff to cross-examine DW-1. The Trial Court, under the impugned orders rejected the applications without assigning any reasons. It is submitted that when there is no pleading, the defendant cannot state the said facts in the evidence. The evidence beyond the pleading cannot be looked into by the Trial Court. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions:
(1) KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS Vs. S.J.R. PRIME COPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS , (2024) 9 SCC 462
(2) SMT. NALINI SUNDER Vs. SRI.G.V. SUNDER , AIR 2003 KARNATAKA 86
(3) BACHHAJ NAHAR Vs. NILIMA MANDAL AND ANOTHER , (2008) 17 SCC 491
3. Per contra, Sri.Srinivasa C., learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned orders of the Trial Court and submits that DW-1 has not stated anything which was mentioned in the application for amendment of the written statement. It is submitted that there is no provision under the law to file an application seeking to strike off the evidence of a party. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record.
5. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.8853/2013 against the defendant seeking the judgment and decree for a sum of Rs.92,71,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization. The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint averments by stating that the defendant made payment of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash on 13.07.2011 which was accepted and acknowledged by the plaintiff and again, Rs.19,00,000/- in cash was paid to the plaintiff which was also accepted and acknowledged by the plaintiff. The defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) seeking amendment of the written statement. In the said proposed amendment, the defendant has stated that the defendant has paid a total sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the plaintiff. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court which was assailed by the defendant before this Court in W.P.No.43830/2016. This Court, vide order dated 17.08.2021 dismissed the writ petition.
6. The defendant – DW-1 filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the CPC, and Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, seeking prayer to strike off paragraphs 10 to 12 of the examination-in-chief of DW-1 on the ground that the defendant’s evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief is beyond his pleadings. It is to be noticed that the amendment sought to the written statement of the defendant, wherein it was stated that the defendant had paid a total sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the plaintiff was rejected and affirmed by this Court in a writ petition and despite the same, the said fact is brought in the affidavi
