Order 24

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS 57/23
LOKESH KUMAR Vs. BHAGAT SINGH AND ANR
20.07.2026
Present: Mr. M.L.Sharma, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff with plaintiff.
Mr. Amir Khan, Ld. Counsel for D-1 and D-2 with said
defendants.
IA No. 1/26 (plaintiff's application U/O XIX Rule 3, 5 and 6 (b) CPC)
praying for rejection of affidavit in evidence of the defendants.
1. Copy supplied.
2. At the outset, counsel for plaintiff submitted that the application
moved today should be read as confined to affidavit in evidence
of Pankaj Singh/D-2W1. He argues that in the affidavit in
evidence filed by the above witness, various paragraphs are
mentioned which are essentially legal paragraphs and thus, they
should be ordered to be struck off from the affidavit in
evidence.
3. It is to be noted that the objection taken today has been taken
after the witness Pankaj Singh/D2W1 has already tendered his
affidavit in evidence on 23.04.2026 and after his part cross-
examination was done by the Counsel. Counsel pointed out to
Order XIX Rule 3, 5 and 6(b) CPC arguing that the Court can
order redaction/striking out of such paragraphs which are mere
reproduction of pleadings or contain legal grounds only. It is his
argument that the said power can be exercised at any stage
including during ongoing cross-examination of a witness.
4. In my humble opinion, if the power U/O XIX Rule 5 CPC
(redacting or rejecting evidence) or U/O XIX Rule 6 (b) CPC
(striking out of portions of an affidavit in evidence) are
-- 1 of 2 --
exercised during an ongoing cross-examination, it shall mean
that the Court is reading into the evidence affidavit of a party
when the trial is ongoing. Once the plaintiff had not taken any
objection qua the affidavit in evidence when it was tendered in
evidence and a part cross-examination has been done,
rejecting/redacting/striking out any portions of such an affidavit
in evidence would prejudice the other party as the said party
would not have had the opportunity to rectify/correct his
affidavit in evidence in light of the above provisions. The
intention of the legislature under the aforesaid provisions
appear to be force a party to confine his evidence limited to his
own knowledge and any hearsay evidence or reproduction of
pleadings is to be avoided. If the plaintiff had any objection to
the evidence of Pankaj Singh/D2W1, nothing prevented the
plaintiff from raising the said objections when the affidavit in
evidence of the said witness was sought to be tendered.
5. As per record, no such objection was taken at that stage.
6. Considering the above, in my humble opinion, the application is
misconceived. It is dismissed.
7. List for cross-examination of Pankaj Singh/D2W1 on
05.10.2026.
8. Dasti.
Aashish Gupta
DJ-01/NE/KKD/DELHI
20.07.2026
-- 2 of 2 --