Relevance of affidavit evidence limits cross-examination where witness material goes beyond pleadings and framed issues.

Affidavit evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC must remain confined to facts relevant to the pleaded issues, and material that is ex facie irrelevant or beyond the pleadings may be treated as inadmissible for trial purposes. The Bombay HC applied the principle that a party cannot travel beyond its pleadings and that relevance is a threshold requirement under Section 5 and Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It held that such portions need not burden the cross-examination process; the impugned affidavit portions were ignored for recording evidence, and the opposite party was relieved from cross-examining on them.

---

---

Issues: Whether portions of the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of a witness, being ex facie irrelevant and beyond the pleadings and issues, could be ignored at the stage of recording evidence and whether the opposite party could be relieved from cross-examining on such portions.

Analysis: The affidavits filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must be confined to facts relevant to the issues framed and supported by the pleadings. Evidence which is plainly unrelated to the controversy in the suit, or which introduces personal disputes and matters outside the scope of the pleaded case, can be treated as inadmissible for the purpose of the trial. The Court held that, though objections to admissibility may in suitable cases be deferred for final decision, ex facie irrelevant evidence beyond pleadings need not be allowed to burden the cross-examination process. The Court relied on the principle that a party cannot travel beyond its pleadings and that relevance is a threshold requirement under Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 5 of that Act.

Conclusion: The objection succeeded. The impugned portions of the witness affidavit were held to be irrelevant and beyond the pleadings, and they were directed to be ignored for recording evidence. The applicant was not required to cross-examine the witness on those portions.

---