The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by Petitioners and others challenging the affidavit of examination-in-chief submitted by Respondent, holding that objections to evidence can be addressed at a later stage during trial proceedings.

1. Background

The petition arises from a suit for specific performance based on a development agreement dated 29th December 2010. The petitioners alleged that the affidavit submitted by the respondents contradicted their written statement.

2. Petitioners’ Arguments

• Objection to Evidence: The petitioners contended that the affidavit included evidence unsupported by pleadings, violating Order 18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
• Reference to Precedents: They relied on several judgments, including Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi (2011 AIR SCW 1061), asserting that evidence beyond pleadings should be disregarded.

3. Respondents’ Arguments

• The respondents maintained that any objection to evidence could be addressed at the final hearing stage.
• They asserted that the trial court had the discretion to discard irrelevant evidence during the proceedings.

4. Court’s Observations

• Scope of Order 18 Rules 4 and 5: The Court emphasized the harmonious construction of these provisions, citing Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. (2003 DGLS (SC) 974).
• Relevance of Pleadings: The Court reiterated the principle that evidence without supporting pleadings cannot be considered.

5. Decision

The High Court upheld the trial court's ruling that objections to evidence could be addressed during the trial. It concluded that the petition lacked merit as the petitioners' interests were already safeguarded.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Order 18 Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code: Allows affidavits for examination-in-chief but mandates cross-examination and relevance to pleadings.
• Order 18 Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code: Requires the recording of oral evidence in open court.
• Order 19, Civil Procedure Code: Relates to affidavits and limits their scope to facts within the knowledge of the deponent.

Ratio Decidendi:

Evidence must align with pleadings to ensure fairness and clarity in legal disputes. Objections regarding admissibility can be addressed at later trial stages, balancing procedural efficiency and justice.

Subjects:

Civil Procedure, Specific Performance, Evidence Law

Order 18 CPC, Pleadings, Affidavit Evidence, Specific Performance