https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457450 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. en-us Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2024 20:17:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457450 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457450