1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3952/2010 Anil Kalyandas Thanvi -: VERSUS :- Yogesh Murlidhar Khandelwal Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 17, 2010. Heard Shri B.K. Gandi, learned Counsel for Petitioner/defendant. Respondent / plaintiff filed affidavit of examination-in-chief and petitioner moved an application for striking down certain portion thereof, contending that it was not supported by pleading. The Trial Court rejected that application holding that it has no such power. Petitioner then filed application for review and that is also rejected. Shri Gandhi, learned Counsel as to demonstrate power of the Court has relied upon the judgments reported at (2010) 1 SCC 466 (Kattinokkula Muralikrishna .vrs. Veeramalla Koteswara rao and others) and 2004 (3) All MR (SC) 271 (Ameer Trading Company Ltd. .vrs. Shapoorji Dada Processing Ltd.) and an order by me in Writ Petition No. 1678/2006 dated 17.08.2006 (Rahul Shrikrishna Sane .vrs. Sau. Aditi Jayant Fadke). 2 The order dated 17.08.2006 shows that this Court has found that, when there is no written statement the defendant cannot come up with any specific plea and evidence. In Kattinokkula Muralikrishna .vrs. Veeramalla Koteswara rao and others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the challenge in Election Petition and held that evidence beyond pleading can never be permitted to be adduced, nor such evidence can be taken into consideration. In Ameer Trading Company Ltd. .vrs. Shapoorji Dada Processing Ltd. (supra) again the approach of Hon'ble Apex court is non the same lines. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also specified that, when such statement is made in examination-in-chief, objection can always be taken before the Court by other side in writing and in any event attention of witnesses can be drawn to it while cross examining him. The facts show that petitioner has not adopted this approach. He insisted that trial Court has to remove that part of affidavit and thereby he wanted respondent / plaintiff not to depose beyond his pleadings. The trial Court has correctly appreciated the controversy. The petitioner can place his objection on that part of affidavit in writing before the trial Court or then can invite attention of plaintiff while cross examining him to absence of pleadings in support of his stand. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.