No evidence can be led or considered without a foundation laid in the pleadings.

The Appellant (plaintiff) lent Rs. 50,00,000 to the Respondent (defendant) on March 30, 2011, at an agreed interest rate of 9% per annum

The Respondent acknowledged the debt and made intermittent interest payments until September 20, 2016

On March 23, 2017, the Respondent issued a cheque for the principal amount, which was dishonored on March 27, 2017, with the remark "Debit Account Closed"

The Appellant initiated criminal proceedings and subsequently filed a recovery suit on June 7, 2018

Despite service, the Respondent failed to file a written statement, and the suit proceeded as undefended

During cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness, the Respondent introduced "Exhibit 1" (a document) subject to objection, which the Trial Judge relied upon to dismiss the suit without first deciding on the validity of the objection

1. Whether the Trial Judge erred in relying upon a document marked "subject to objection" without first adjudicating upon said objection

2. Whether the suit for recovery was barred by the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963

3. Whether a defendant in an undefended suit can lead evidence or introduce documents to establish a defense without laying a foundation in the pleadings

Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the court's duty to pronounce on limitation

Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. vs. M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited & Ors. (2024 INSC 542), which establishes that no evidence can be led without a foundation laid in the pleadings

Mohammed Abdul Wahid vs. Nilofer and Another (2024) 2 SCC 144 regarding the use of documents in cross-examination to refresh memory or confront witnesses, noting that such use still presupposes foundational pleadings

The Court observed that the Trial Judge committed a procedural error by relying on "Exhibit 1" to doubt the appellant's claim without resolving the recorded objection regarding its admissibility

Since the Respondent filed no written statement, the suit was undefended, and the Respondent’s right to cross-examine was strictly limited to the plaintiff's pleadings; they could not introduce a new defense via documents (Exhibit 1) for which no foundation existed in any pleading

Regarding limitation, the Court found that while the loan originated in 2011, the Respondent’s continuous interest payments (the last being September 20, 2016) and the issuance of a cheque in March 2017 constituted acknowledgments of liability

As the suit was filed in June 2018, it fell well within the three-year limitation period calculated from the last acknowledgment

The Court further noted that the cheque was dishonored for "Account Closed" and not for manipulation, undermining the Trial Judge's skepticism

The Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the Trial Judge erred in considering evidence introduced dehors the pleadings in an undefended suit

The Court decreed the suit in favor of the Appellant for the sum of Rs. 50,00,000 along with interest at 9% per annum from September 20, 2016, until realization

No order as to costs was made