Short answer. Yes. Section 39 of Rule 132 lets the court strike an answer, testimony, or narration when a witness answers before an objection can be voiced, gives a non-responsive answer, testifies unasked, exceeds limits the court set, or narrates instead of answering — and on proper motion can also strike incompetent or irrelevant answers.
What the law says
where a witness testifies without a question being posed or testifies beyond limits set by the court or when the witness does a narration instead of answering the question, and such objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order such answer, testimony or narration to be stricken off the record
Rule 132, Section 39 — Striking out [Q/] answer. Read the full provision →
The specific situations this rule addresses
Section 39 lists several distinct ways testimony can go wrong procedurally: a witness answering before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection, a question that is not itself objectionable but whose answer is not responsive, a witness who testifies without a question being posed, testimony that goes beyond limits set by the court, or a witness who does a narration instead of answering the question. Each describes a different way that what ends up on the record does not correspond to a proper question-and-answer exchange.
What happens once the objection is upheld
Where an objection covering one of these situations is raised and the court finds it meritorious, the consequence is specific: the court shall sustain the objection and order such answer, testimony or narration to be stricken off the record. Striking testimony is not a discretionary courtesy once the objection is well-founded — the rule uses shall, meaning the court is directed to remove it from consideration once the standard is met.
A second, broader path: striking on motion
Beyond the specific procedural defects listed above, the section adds a separate avenue: on proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. This is a broader catch-all, letting a party challenge testimony on substantive grounds — not just how it was elicited — even after it has already been given, rather than requiring every objection to be caught in the instant before an answer is spoken.
Why timely objection still matters
Even though this section allows testimony to be stricken after the fact, waiting too long to object can still weaken a party's position — the longer improper testimony sits unchallenged in front of the court, the more it can shape the overall impression of the case even if it is later formally removed from the record. Raising the objection promptly, and asking the court to act on it under this section, remains the more effective practice.
Related provisions
- Rule 132, Section 39 — Striking out [Q/] answer
- Rule 132, Section 38 — Ruling
- Rule 132, Section 40 — Tender of excluded evidence