One of the most firmly settled doctrines in Pakistani civil jurisprudence is that parties are bound by their pleadings. Courts do not decide cases on evolving or improvised narratives, but strictly on what has been formally pleaded and subsequently proved. The rule that no evidence can be led beyond pleadings serves as a cornerstone of procedural fairness, ensuring transparency, preventing surprise, and confining adjudication to clearly defined disputes.
Over time, the Supreme Court of Pakistan and all High Courts have consistently reaffirmed this doctrine across civil, family, constitutional, consumer, service, and revenue matters. This article consolidates the leading Pakistani case laws on evidence beyond pleadings, explains the legal rationale behind the rule, and demonstrates how courts apply it in real litigation.
Meaning and Scope of Pleadings
Pleadings include the plaint, written statement, replication (where filed), and any amendments allowed by the court. Their fundamental purpose is to clearly disclose the material facts, the relief sought, and the controversies requiring adjudication. Pleadings are not meant to contain evidence, arguments, or conclusions of law.
Order VI Rule 2 CPC mandates that pleadings must state material facts only. Evidence is introduced later, but solely to substantiate those pleaded facts. This distinction ensures that the opposing party is fully aware of the case it must meet and that the court frames issues on disclosed grounds rather than assumptions.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that pleadings define the boundaries of the lis. Parties are therefore not permitted to travel beyond those boundaries at the stage of evidence or arguments, as doing so would undermine procedural fairness and the adversarial system.
General Rule: No Evidence Beyond Pleadings
The settled rule of law is that no party can lead, rely upon, or benefit from evidence that is not founded on its pleadings. Even if such evidence is formally recorded, courts are legally bound to ignore it.
In Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Anwar (2023 SCMR 1371), the Supreme Court of Pakistan categorically held that a plaintiff cannot lead evidence beyond the scope of pleadings. This position was reaffirmed in Muhammad Naeem Khan v. Muqadas Khan (2022 PLD 99 SC).
Similarly, the Lahore High Court in J.K. Twills and Drills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Premier Insurance Company (2023 CLD 1098) clarified that plaint and written statement cannot be equated with evidence and that no evidence can be read in support of a plea that was never pleaded.
Evidence Led Beyond Pleadings Has No Legal Value
Courts have consistently ruled that evidence outside pleadings is not merely weak; it is legally irrelevant and non-existent.
In Province of the Punjab v. Muhammad Khan (2023 YLR 1261 Lahore), it was held that parties cannot travel beyond pleadings and that evidence led outside pleadings carries no relevance or probative value.
The Supreme Court in Pak Suzuki Motors Company Ltd. v. Faisal Jameel Butt (2023 CLD 934; PLD 2023 SC 482) reinforced this position by holding that defects not pleaded in consumer claims could not be proved through affidavits or examination-in-chief. Any such evidence was beyond pleadings and therefore inadmissible.
Inherent Defects in Pleadings Cannot Be Cured by Evidence
An important extension of this doctrine is that inherent defects or omissions in pleading cannot be cured by subsequent evidence, no matter how convincing such evidence may appear.
This principle was forcefully reaffirmed in Mst. Sadiqan Begum v. Muhammad Siddique (2025 CLC 1158 Lahore). The Lahore High Court held that failure to plead essential ingredients of an oral gift, such as date, time, place, and witnesses, was fatal to the claim, and no amount of evidence could cure this defect. Statements of witnesses beyond pleadings were rightly excluded from consideration.
Likewise, in Muhammad Farooq Khan v. Muhammad Akram Khan (2024 YLR 216 Lahore), allegations of fraud were rejected because the plaint lacked specific particulars as required under Order VI Rule 4 CPC.
Oral Transactions: A Strict Application of the Rule
Cases involving oral gifts, oral sales, or oral agreements are subjected to particularly strict scrutiny because of their inherent susceptibility to fabrication and afterthought.
Courts have consistently held that such claims must be specifically pleaded with full material particulars, including date, time, place, mode of transaction, and witnesses.
In Nasir Ali v. Mst. Raheela Mahdi (2025 CLC 885 Lahore), the Lahore High Court discarded improvements introduced during evidence in an oral sale claim, holding that such improvements beyond pleadings must be ignored.
Similarly, Abdul Rasheed v. Zahoor-ud-Din (2024 CLC 1060 Lahore) held that where essential details of an oral agreement were not pleaded, evidence led on those aspects was beyond pleading and could not be considered.
Appellate and Revisional Courts Cannot Grant Relief Beyond Pleadings
The restriction against travelling beyond pleadings is not limited to trial courts. Appellate and revisional courts are equally bound by the pleadings of the parties.
Courts have held that relief not founded on pleadings, or granted on an un-pleaded case, is illegal and amounts to material irregularity. This principle applies equally to matters of khula and determination of zar-e-khula.
In Jehangir v. Mst. Aneela (2023 MLD 316 Lahore), the Lahore High Court set aside an appellate judgment for exceeding jurisdiction by granting relief beyond pleadings, reaffirming that even appellate courts must confine their discretion strictly to the pleaded claim.
Similarly, Nation Cable v. Competition Commission of Pakistan (2023 CLD 1501 CAT) held that no new grounds or evidence beyond pleadings could be introduced at the appellate stage.
Amendment of Pleadings: The Only Lawful Exception
If a party seeks to rely on facts not originally pleaded, the only lawful course is to seek amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
The Supreme Court in Muhammad Arif Tarar v. Matloob Ahmad Warraich (2025 PLD 691 SC) clarified that pleadings frame the boundaries of a case, and even belated amendments introducing new factual assertions must be examined with heightened scrutiny.
The Lahore High Court reiterated this position in Mst. Khair-un-Nisa v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission (2025 CLC 1382), holding that parties cannot lead testimony beyond their pleading unless amendments are lawfully allowed.
Mere Pleadings Without Evidence, and Evidence Without Pleadings
Courts have also emphasized the dual rule governing adjudication:
i) pleadings without proof are insufficient, and
ii) evidence without pleadings is legally useless.
In Akbar Shah v. Ayub Khan (2025 CLC 1537 Peshawar), it was held that mere pleadings unsupported by quality evidence cannot decide a case, while evidence without pleadings confers no benefit.
Similarly, in Sadia Parveen v. Muhammad Umer (2025 YLR 539 Lahore), depositions not mentioned in the plaint were discarded as testimony beyond pleading.
Constitutional and Service Matters
The doctrine applies with equal force to constitutional and service jurisprudence.
In Naveed Hafeez v. Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited (2025 PLC 160 Lahore), service claims based on grounds not pleaded were rejected, and evidence beyond pleadings was excluded from consideration.
Core Legal Maxims Supporting the Rule
Pakistani courts frequently rely on classical legal maxims to reinforce this doctrine:
Secundum allegata et probata — cases must be decided according to what is pleaded and proved. This maxim was invoked in Mst. Ruqiya Bibi v. Allah Ditta (2018 YLR 2118 Lahore).
Allegans contraria non est audiendus — a person who alleges contradictory facts is not to be heard. This principle was expressly applied in Nasir Ali v. Mst. Raheela Mahdi (2025 CLC 885 Lahore).
Conclusion
The law in Pakistan on evidence beyond pleadings is settled, consistent, and unwavering. Pleadings define the battlefield; evidence can operate only within it. Courts have no discretion to rely upon evidence that strays beyond pleadings, nor can inherent defects in pleading be cured through testimony or documents. The only lawful remedy lies in timely amendment of pleadings.
This doctrine preserves procedural fairness, prevents ambush litigation, and ensures that justice is administered on clearly disclosed grounds, making it one of the most effective and powerful tools in civil litigation strategy.