Handwriting Expert Report Can't Be Introduced At Evidence Stage To Support Forgery Plea Not Taken In Written Statement: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a handwriting expert's report cannot be introduced at the evidence stage to support a forgery plea that was never raised in the written statement, observing that evidence cannot be used to introduce a new factual foundation or defence beyond the pleadings.A bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that pleadings constitute the foundation of evidence and...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a handwriting expert's report cannot be introduced at the evidence stage to support a forgery plea that was never raised in the written statement, observing that evidence cannot be used to introduce a new factual foundation or defence beyond the pleadings.
A bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that pleadings constitute the foundation of evidence and the opposite party is entitled to know the precise case it is required to meet. Allowing a new factual plea to be introduced for the first time through evidence would cause prejudice to the opposite party.
“The distinction between elaboration of a pleaded case and introduction of a wholly new case cannot be overlooked. Evidence is intended to substantiate the pleadings; it cannot be employed as a device to supply the very foundation which the pleadings themselves do not contain.”
For context, the Court was hearing a petition challenging trial court's order by which the court declined to introduce a document at the evidence stage, on the ground that the proposed document was beyond the pleadings.
The respondent had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract against the petitioner. At the stage of evidence, the petitioner wanted to place on record an affidavit of a handwriting expert. This was declined by the trial court, which was challenged before the Court.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that in the written statement of the petitioner, there was no specific plea to the effect that the signature on the agreement in question was fabricated or forged, neither any other averment seeking expert opinion on genuineness of the signatures.
In this background, the Court observed,
“A party is ordinarily required to establish its case within the contours of its pleadings. Pleadings constitute the foundation upon which the edifice of evidence is constructed, and a party cannot ordinarily be permitted to travel beyond the case pleaded by it so as to introduce, at a subsequent stage, an altogether new factual foundation or a defence which was conspicuously absent from the original pleadings.”
It was held that the petitioner's attempt could not be treated as a mere innocuous elaboration of an existing plea and he could not seek to overcome the deficiency in the written statement by relying upon an expert report brought on record only at the stage of evidence.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and the order of the trial court was upheld.
Title: Bihari Lal v Navratanmal Bamb & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 402