##PAGE1##

CR-3284-2026 (O&M) -:1:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(124) CR-3284-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision:20.04.2026

MAHENDER SINGH

… Petitioner

Versus

HARYANA WAKF BOARD AND ORS

... Respondents

****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present:- Mr. Ravinder Rana, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been instituted under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of

this Court, to assail the order dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-7), whereby

the application preferred by the petitioner seeking expunction of certain

portions of the affidavit filed by defendant No.3, by way of examination-

in-chief, on the ground that the same travelled beyond the pleadings, has

been declined.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit for

permanent as well as mandatory injunction, asserting himself to be the

owner in possession of land measuring 5 marlas comprised in Khasra No.

928 (0-5), situated within the municipal limits of District Jhajjar. It was

pleaded that the suit property, duly delineated in the site plan and depicted

in red colour, was owned by defendants No.1 and 2 and had been leased

GAURAV SOROT

2026.04.22 15:11

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-3284-2026 (O&M) -:2:-

out to the petitioner-plaintiff. It was further averred that defendants No.1

and 2 had retained a strip of 20 yards as Samadhi of Peer, while the

remaining portion was in possession of the petitioner, who had, with their

consent, raised construction of shops thereon and was otherwise utilizing

the property for personal purposes. It was further alleged that defendants

No.3 and 4, in collusion with certain anti-social elements, were attempting

to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and to alter the nature

of the suit property, thereby necessitating the institution of the suit.

3. Upon service of notice, defendants No.3 and 4 entered

appearance and filed a common written statement contesting the claim.

The parties thereafter led their respective evidence. During the course of

evidence, when defendant No.3 stepped into the witness box and tendered

his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief, certain averments were made

therein which, according to the petitioner, were beyond the scope of the

pleadings contained in the written statement. Consequently, the petitioner

moved an application seeking expunction of the said portions of the

affidavit. The said application, upon contest, came to be dismissed by the

learned Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has

been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is a

settled principle of law that evidence must be confined strictly to the

pleadings, and any material adduced beyond the scope thereof is liable to

be eschewed from consideration. It is submitted that the affidavit filed by

respondent-defendant No.3, by way of examination-in-chief, clearly

traverses beyond the pleadings set out in the written statement, and the

GAURAV SOROT

2026.04.22 15:11

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-3284-2026 (O&M) -:3:-

learned Civil Judge has failed to appreciate this settled position while

rejecting the application for expunction.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and

have carefully perused the impugned order as well as the record of the

case with due application of mind.

6. The learned Civil Judge has categorically observed that

defendants No. 3 and 4 are entitled to substantiate their case by leading

evidence and that pleadings are required to contain only material facts, and

not the entirety of the evidentiary particulars. It has thus been held that the

affidavit tendered by respondent–defendant No. 3 by way of examination-

in-chief is in consonance with the pleadings contained in the written

statement.

6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has contended

that certain averments in the affidavit tr