The contents of an affidavit or examination-in-chief must be confined to the pleadings of the parties and the points on which issues have been framed by the court.

Aditya Nath Mittal, J.

Vakalatnama filed by Shri S.K.Mehrotra for the sole respondent is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. This revision has been filed against the order dated 21.01.2015 passed in Civil Suit No. 193 of 2005 by Civil Judge (S.D.) Unnao, by which Application No. Ga-160 has been allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is the plaintiff of the suit and he had filed the affidavit in support of the case for which objection was raised that some unnecessary points have been raised in the said affidavit. It has also been submitted that the plaintiff is required not only to meet out his case but also the case taken in the written statement, therefore, it is not required that the evidence of the plaintiff should be confined to the pleadings but it has to be confined to the matter in issue.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the revision is not maintainable because the learned court below has not rejected the evidence on affidavit but has only asked the plaintiff to file amended affidavit in view of objection raised.

6. It is a suit for mandatory injunction by which the plaintiff wants that the defendant be directed to construct drain in front of plot of the plaintiff within stipulated time fixed by the court. It is also not disputed that after the amendment of the C.P.C. the parties are required to file their affidavit as examination-in-chief and thereafter other parties given the opportunity to cross examine the deponent.

7. In Mahabanoo Navroz Kotwal v. Piloo Fali Bomanji decided on 10.06.2014, the Bombay High Court relying upon the judgments of various courts including the Privy Council and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Amir Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd., had held as under:-

"12. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the Court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fall out of the above practice is this : Suppose the trial Court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the Appellate or Revisional Court, when the same question is recanvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the Appellate Court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial Court. In such a situation the higher Court may have to send the case back to the trial Court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves? Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings."

8. It is settled proposition of law that the irrelevant portion of the affidavit may either be struck off or the person furnishing affidavit may be asked to furnish another affidavit as there is already direction from this Court to decide the suit expeditiously.

9. The amendment in the C.P.C. was made with a view to save time of the court in recording the examination-in-chief and therefore, it has been provided that the affidavit may be taken regarding examination-in-chief.

10. Certainly, the contents of affidavit or the examination-in-chief has to be confined to the pleadings of the parties and the points on which issues have been framed by the court. Certainly, neither in the affidavit in evidence nor in the examination-in-chief on oath, any party can not be permitted to lead irrelevant evidence because Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 provi