Affidavit evidence under Order XVIII Rule 4 cannot include hearsay or argument and may be replaced with a conforming affidavit.

An affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC must still satisfy the limits of admissible testimony under Order XIX Rule 3 and the Evidence Act. Argumentative matter, legal submissions, hearsay, and facts outside the deponent's personal knowledge cannot validly form part of such evidence. The Court cannot mechanically delete affidavit text, but it may treat non-conforming portions as outside consideration and direct that a fresh affidavit be filed in proper form. The opposing party's right to cross-examine remains confined to admissible evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can contain argumentative matter, submissions, hearsay, or material not within the deponent's personal knowledge; (ii) whether the Court can direct that objectionable portions of such an affidavit be ignored or excluded from consideration and permit the filing of a conforming fresh affidavit.

Issue (i): whether an affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can contain argumentative matter, submissions, hearsay, or material not within the deponent's personal knowledge.

Analysis: Order XVIII Rule 4 requires examination-in-chief to be given on affidavit, but that affidavit must still remain testimony in the legal sense and must conform to the requirements of Order XIX Rule 3 and the Evidence Act. An affidavit cannot be used to introduce legal submissions, pleadings, or material that is hearsay, wholly extraneous, or not within the deponent's personal knowledge. Procedural convenience cannot enlarge the scope of admissible evidence or dilute the substantive law governing what may be proved.

Conclusion: The affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief cannot validly include argumentative, hearsay, or otherwise inadmissible matter, and such matter is not proper testimony.

Issue (ii): whether the Court can direct that objectionable portions of such an affidavit be ignored or excluded from consideration and permit the filing of a conforming fresh affidavit.

Analysis: Although the Court has no power to delete portions of an affidavit as such, it can determine whether particular portions are incapable of forming part of examination-in-chief and may direct that they be excluded from consideration as evidence. Where an affidavit is non-conforming, the Court may also allow substitution by an affidavit that complies with the CPC and the Evidence Act, while preserving the right of the opposite party to cross-examine on proper evidence only.

Conclusion: The Court can exclude non-conforming portions from consideration and permit a fresh affidavit in conformity with law.

Final Conclusion: The objectionable portions of the affidavit were not to be treated as evidence, and the deponent was required to file a fresh affidavit limited to admissible testimony.

Ratio Decidendi: An affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 remains subject to the limits of admissible testimony under the Evidence Act and Order XIX Rule 3, so argumentative, hearsay, or otherwise inadmissible matter cannot form part of such evidence, even though the Court may not mechanically delete the affidavit text.

---