Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Trial Courts Cannot Strike Off Examination-in-Chief by Invoking Section 151 CPC Merely Because Evidence Allegedly Travels Beyond Pleadings; Admissibility Must Be Decided Under the Evidence Act
Case Name: Col. Manpreet Singh v. Sham Lal and Others
Date of Judgment: 09 July 2026
Citation: CR-1848-2019
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain.
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that once examination-in-chief has been tendered by way of affidavit in accordance with Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the trial court has no jurisdiction to strike it off by invoking its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC merely because the evidence is alleged to travel beyond the pleadings. The Court held that after the 2002 amendment to the CPC, admissibility of documentary or oral evidence is governed by the procedure contemplated under the Evidence Act, 1872, particularly Section 136, and objections regarding evidence beyond pleadings are matters to be considered at the stage of appreciation of evidence rather than by striking off the affidavit itself. The inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised contrary to the statutory scheme of the CPC and the Evidence Act.
Summary: The revision petition challenged an order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kapurthala allowing an application under Section 151 CPC whereby the examination-in-chief affidavit of one of the plaintiffs was struck off on the ground that the documents referred to therein were beyond the pleadings and had been introduced to fill lacunae after another witness had already been cross-examined. The plaintiffs contended that the affidavit merely proved documents already relied upon, that the defendants were free to object to their admissibility during trial, and that there was no provision in law authorising the trial court to strike off examination-in-chief after it had been tendered in evidence. The defendants supported the impugned order by arguing that the affidavit sought to introduce material beyond the pleadings and to overcome deficiencies exposed during cross-examination. Examining the statutory framework, the High Court observed that following the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, examination-in-chief is ordinarily tendered by affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC, while questions regarding admissibility of evidence fall within the domain of the Evidence Act, particularly Section 136. The Court held that although evidence beyond pleadings cannot ultimately be relied upon, the law does not authorise a civil court to strike off an examination-in-chief affidavit on that ground after it has been tendered. The admissibility, relevance and evidentiary value of such material are matters to be considered at the appropriate stage of trial. Since the trial court exercised inherent powers under Section 151 CPC in a manner inconsistent with the express statutory procedure, its order was found to be legally unsustainable. The High Court, however, clarified that the defendants would remain at liberty to argue at the stage of final adjudication that any portion of the plaintiff’s evidence beyond the pleadings deserves to be ignored.
Decision: The Civil Revision was allowed. The High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court striking off the plaintiff’s examination-in-chief affidavit under Section 151 CPC and held that objections regarding evidence beyond pleadings should be decided at the stage of appreciation of evidence in accordance with the Evidence Act, while preserving the defendants’ right to raise all such objections during the trial.