JUDGMENT : Aditya Nath Mittal, J. Vakalatnama filed by Shri S.K.Mehrotra for the sole respondent is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This revision has been filed against the order dated 21.01.2015 passed in Civil Suit No. 193 of 2005 by Civil Judge (S.D.) Unnao, by which Application No. Ga-160 has been allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is the plaintiff of the suit and he had filed the affidavit in support of the case for which objection was raised that some unnecessary points have been raised in the said affidavit. It has also been submitted that the plaintiff is required not only to meet out his case but also the case taken in the written statement, therefore, it is not required that the evidence of the plaintiff should be confined to the pleadings but it has to be confined to the matter in issue. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the revision is not maintainable because the learned court below has not rejected the evidence on affidavit but has only asked the plaintiff to file amended affidavit in view of objection raised. 6. It is a suit for mandatory injunction by which the plaintiff wants that the defendant be directed to construct drain in front of plot of the plaintiff within stipulated time fixed by the court. It is also not disputed that after the amendment of the C.P.C. the parties are required to file their affidavit as examination-in-chief and thereafter other parties given the opportunity to cross examine the deponent. 7. In Mahabanoo Navroz Kotwal v. Piloo Fali Bomanji decided on 10.06.2014, the Bombay High Court relying upon the judgments of various courts including the Privy Council and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Amir Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd., had held as under:- "12. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the Court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fall out of the above practice is this : Suppose the trial Court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. But the fall out of the above practice is this : Suppose the trial Court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the Appellate or Revisional Court, when the same question is recanvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the Appellate Court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial Court. In such a situation the higher Court may have to send the case back to the trial Court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves? Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings." 8. It is settled proposition of law that the irrelevant portion of the affidavit may either be struck off or the person furnishing affidavit may be asked to furnish another affidavit as there is already direction from this Court to decide the suit expeditiously. 9. The amendment in the C.P.C. was made with a view to save time of the court in recording the examination-in-chief and therefore, it has been provided that the affidavit may be taken regarding examination-in-chief. 10. Certainly, the contents of affidavit or the examination-in-chief has to be confined to the pleadings of the parties and the points on which issues have been framed by the court. Certainly, neither in the affidavit in evidence nor in the examination-in-chief on oath, any party can not be permitted to lead irrelevant evidence because Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 provides that the evidence may be given in any suit or proceedings of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are declared to be relevant under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and of no others. Order XIX Rule 3 C.P.C. further provides that the affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove. 11. Order XIX Rule 3 C.P.C. further provides that the affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove. 11. In my view, the affidavits permitted to be filed under Order 18, Rule 4 in lieu of examination-in-chief has to contain only the deposition which is relevant facts in issue in the suit or relevant aspects which the witness has to prove before the Court and not beyond what is pleaded by the parties and also not which is irrelevant to the issues framed. If an opposite party raises any objection about any part of the deposition which is totally irrelevant, beyond the pleadings and/or the same is irrelevant ex facie, Court can direct the deponent to file fresh affidavit after deleting the irrelevant part of evidence on which no cross-examination could be warranted. 12. In these circumstances, it shall be in the interest of justice for this case that instead of filing the affidavit in evidence, both the parties may be directed to appear in person and depose before the court regarding the relevant facts and relevant issues because at this stage, it cannot be decided that what are the relevant material on the affidavit. 13. In view of above, the revision is disposed of finally with the direction that both the parties and their witnesses shall appear in person for deposing in the said civil suit and the affidavit filed by the plaintiff shall not be taken into consideration. It shall be open to the court below to disallow the irrelevant evidence during the course of recording examination-in-chief or the cross-examination.