(1) Introduction:
In civil litigation, the pleading is a base and the main element of every civil suit. Every party must present the proper pleading to establish his rights defence or to prove his case. But, is this enough for a party to submit only his pleadings in Court?
Every pleading is the main foundation of a civil suit that relies on truth and fact. However, when discussing the court case, a party must establish his pleadings by adducing appropriate evidence. Evidence beyond pleadings can not be considered in the Court. It is the rule of evidence, and the party must submit proper and relevant evidence to travel beyond his pleadings.
The Court can only rely upon evidence that must be produced according to the pleadings. In this article, we discuss the basic rule of evidence, which is necessary for the party to adduce with supporting his pleadings because a civil court cannot grant relief beyond pleadings.
In this article, we understand the general principle of the rule of evidence beyond pleadings, affidavits of evidence, cross-examination, arguments beyond pleadings, etc. It helps us to know the importance of pleading in a civil suit.
(2) What is the rule of evidence beyond pleadings?
In civil litigation, parties of the lawsuit can not be permitted to adduce evidence that contradicts their pleadings. Generally, the Court concludes that there is no value of evidence that is present by parties without pleadings in a court.
That’s why the Court prevents parties from adducing a piece of evidence that is beyond their pleadings. One of the most important things is that pleadings are the foundation of every litigation.
So, if the pleading of the litigant is quite different from the issue, it is baseless to adduce evidence to prove that issue. A party must adduce relevant evidence to the Court under his pleadings.
In some cases, the party of suit adduces his evidence beyond his pleadings, and the other party does not take any objection to bringing such evidence on record. But after all, the Court can not act upon such types of evidence, and a court cannot make out a case not pleaded.
When we read the provision of order 13 rule 3 of the civil procedure code, we can understand that the Court has discretionary power regarding rejecting irrelevant or inadmissible documents at any stage of proceedings with recorded reason in writing form.
In the case of Chaganti Venkata Bhaskar Vs C Chandrasekhar Reddy (2010 (3) ALT 101),[1]. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Rejecting inadmissible documents under Order 13 Rule 3 of C. P. C. can occur at any stage of the suit proceedings. However, the reasons for such rejection shall be recorded.
In the case of Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L. Rs Vs Bishun Narain Inter College and others, (AIR 1987 SC 1242),[2]. The Supreme Court held that It is well settled that evidence, if any, provided by the parties can not be considered without pleadings. It is equally agreed that no party should be able to proceed beyond its pleading and that the party should argue all required and relevant evidence in support of the case it has set up. The aim and intent of pleading are to allow the opponent’s party to know the case they face. The party must state the essential material facts to provide a fair trial so the other party should not be surprised.
However, the pleadings should obtain a liberal structure, and there should be no pedantic attempt to undermine justice through the techniques of hair-splitting. Often, pleadings are articulated in terms that need to set out an argument according to the strict reading of the Law. In such a case, it is the Court’s responsibility to assess the content of the pleadings to determine the matter. Instead of placing undue emphasis on the type, it is not desirable to consider the content of the pleadings.
(3) Affidavit of evidence beyond pleadings:
Generally, an affidavit has to be filed by a person who knows the facts of the case, and based on that knowledge, he is eligible to file an affidavit.
In the case of L.C. Saptharishi V/s. E.D. Balasubramaniam, reported in 2000(1) L.W. 130,[3]. Holding that any person conversant with the facts of the case and a witness to what transpired before a court is competent to file an affidavit.
Deo Sharan Mahto Vs.Ram Bilash Singh and others (AIR 1975 PATNA 107),[4]. The Patna High Court held, according to the provision of order 6 rule 15, that the facts laid forth on every pleading must be verified either by solemn affirmation or by oath.
This ratio is laid down in the case of First National Bank Ltd. (In Liqn.) Vs. Shri Devi Dayal (AIR 1968 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 292),[5]. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the written statement filed by objectors needs to be revised in the eye of the Law if not verified and supported by an affidavit.
In the case of Banganga Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v. Vasanti Gajanan Nerurkar and Ors,(2015 (5) BomCR 813),[6]. The Bombay High Court held that:
(a) No Evidence Affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC can be allowed to be ‘withdrawn’. It is evidence as soon as it is affirmed.
(b) The Evidence Affidavit cannot contain matter that is irrelevant, inadmissible or both or is like arguments, submissions, or prayers. This is not ‘evidence’ as required by Law. Were it to be attempted from the witness box, it would not be permitted; hence, it cannot be allowed to creep in merely because it is placed on an affidavit.
(c) It is permissible, and often necessary, for a Court, with a view to the expedition and to avoid a needlessly protracted cross-examination on irrelevancies and matter that is not ‘evidence’ to order that any such material that does not constitute evidence be struck off or be requested or directed to be ignored without fear of adverse consequence.
(d) Where an Evidence Affidavit is filed and the witness or deponent, though otherwise available, is not made available for cross-examination, the well-established consequences in Law will follow. Specifically, the opposite party will be entitled to submit that an adverse inference is drawn against such a witness or the party who fails to produce that witness for cross-examination and, further, that should that evidence contain any admissions, the other party may use these, but so much of the evidence as is against the party entitled to cross-examination but which has gone untested for want of production of the witness will be liable to be ignored.
(4) cross-examination beyond pleadings:
According to the provision of the civil procedure code, Order 18, Rule 4, the witness must be cross-examined by the Court or by the commissioner appointed by the Court.
No Commissioner can Decide on any question raised when a witness is cross-examined. The commissioner must record the objected question, the witness’s response, and the answer. At the time of argument, the Court has to determine the reasonable objection.
Here, the main thing for cross-examining the witness in the civil suit is verifying the witness’s credibility. After submitting the examination in chief, the cross-examination stage will occur during the trial. Cross-examination is the right of other parties directly involved in a suit.
Here, there is no value in a witness who files an evidence affidavit but does not come in the witness box to cross-examine his version in the Court. The Court makes a liberal approach at the cross-examination stage of witness trials.
The council of other parties asks the witness questions regarding the statement he previously filed in writing. The opposite party tries to deny that statement and find a contradiction for his defensive purpose.
However, only leading questions are permitted to ask the witness, which helps to discover the real point of the issue of the case. The Court can only permit the party to cross-examine the witness after his pleadings.
(5) arguments beyond pleadings:
As discussed above, the rule of pleadings is the main base of every lawsuit. The parties have no right to leave their pleadings or create a new and different case. Parties of the suit are binding of pleadings and can not go beyond pleadings. They have to adduce their evidence according to pleadings.
It is also true that based on pleadings, the Court framed the issue, which will help to consider all legal points to decide the suit. The Court can only permit the parties to travel within his pleadings.
However, if the parties want to present any other fact related to the case, they may amend their pleadings with the permission of the Court. The parties’ arguments beyond their pleadings can not be accepted and must be rejected.
The Supreme Court lays down this view in the case of Bharat Singh and others Vs. the State of Haryana and others (AIR 1988 SC 2181),[7]. The Supreme Court held that there was no reference to any material in support thereof, nor was the point argued at the hearing of the writ petitions. When a point which is a point of Law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a pleading under the Civil P.C. and a writ petition of a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a point or a written statement, the facts and no evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.
(6) conclusion:
The Court can only proceed beyond the pleadings, and the issue can only be presented if pleadings are made to create conflict over a specific fact or Law.
Therefore, allowing the party to lead evidence outside the line of pleadings is unacceptable for the Court. Even if parties give their proof that is rejected the same, the Court can not consider it.
(7) Reference:
(1) Chaganti Venkata Bhaskar Vs C Chandrasekhar Reddy (2010 (3) ALT 101).
(2) Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L. Rs Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and others, (AIR 1987 SC 1242)
(3) L.C. Saptharishi V/s. E.D. Balasubramaniam, reported in 2000(1) L.W. 130.
(4) Deo Sharan Mahto Vs.Ram Bilash Singh and others (AIR 1975 PATNA 107).
(5) First National Bank Ltd. (In Liqn.) Vs.Shri Devi Dayal, (AIR 1968 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 292).
(6) Banganga Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v. Vasanti Gajanan Nerurkar and Ors,(2015 (5) BomCR 813).
(7) Bharat Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (AIR 1988 SC 2181).
