Evidence Cannot Be Employed To Supply Missing Foundation: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Plea For Handwriting Expert Report Where Forgery Was Not Pleaded
The Bench noted that the execution and appending of the signature on the agreement stood admitted during the proceedings, making the subsequent attempt to introduce expert evidence an impermissible attempt to alter the factual foundation of the suit.
Justice Farjand Ali, Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a party to a civil suit cannot lead evidence beyond the scope of its pleadings, observing that evidence is intended to substantiate pleadings and cannot be employed as a device to supply a foundation that the written statement lacks.
The Bench dismissed two petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, affirming an order of the Additional District Judge, which refused to allow a defendant to introduce a handwriting expert's report at the evidentiary stage and ordered the removal of the expert's affidavit from the record.
A Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed, “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. To permit a party to do so would not only alter the nature of the controversy at an advanced stage of the trial but would also cause manifest prejudice to the opposite party, who is entitled to know, from the pleadings themselves, the precise case which it is required to meet”.
“…Significantly, no specific plea appears to have been raised by the petitioner-defendant in the written statement that the signature appearing upon the agreement in question was fabricated or forged, nor was any foundation laid therein for seeking an expert opinion with regard to the genuineness of such signature. On the contrary, the aspect relating to the appending of the signature on the agreement stood admitted during the course of the proceedings. In such circumstances, an attempt made subsequently, when the suit had already reached the stage of recording of evidence, to introduce the opinion of a handwriting expert could not be treated as a mere innocuous elaboration of an existing plea”, the Bench noted.
Advocate Rishab Shrimali appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Vinay Jain appeared for the respondent.
The dispute arose from a civil suit for specific performance of a contract and recovery of possession instituted by Navratanmal Bamb against Bihari Lal and other defendants. During the trial, at the stage of recording evidence, the defendant attempted to place on record an expert report by handwriting expert Nitin Balchandani regarding the genuineness of the signature on the agreement in question. The trial court rejected the defendant's request to introduce the report and granted the plaintiff's application to remove the expert's affidavit from the record, prompting the defendant to approach the High Court.
Refusing to interfere with the trial court's order, the High Court observed that no specific plea had been raised by the petitioner-defendant in the written statement alleging that the signature on the agreement was fabricated or forged, nor was any foundation laid for seeking an expert opinion. On the contrary, the execution and appending of the signature on the agreement stood admitted during the proceedings, making the subsequent attempt to introduce expert evidence an impermissible attempt to alter the factual foundation of the suit.
The Bench noted that the distinction between the elaboration of a pleaded case and the introduction of a wholly new case cannot be overlooked. The Bench held that evidence is intended to substantiate pleadings and cannot be used to supply the very foundation that the pleadings themselves do not contain, as permitting a party to do so would alter the nature of the controversy at an advanced stage of the trial and cause manifest prejudice to the opposite party.
Addressing the petitioner's argument regarding the relevance of the expert opinion, the Court clarified that the potential relevance of a piece of evidence cannot dispense with the foundational requirement of a corresponding plea in the written statement.
The Bench further held that once the trial court declined to permit the expert report on record, the consequential removal of the expert's affidavit was a natural corollary.
Cause Title: Bihari Lal v. Navratanmal Bamb & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8992/2023
Appearances:
Petitioner: Rishab Shrimali, Advocate.
Respondents: Vinay Jain, Darshan Jain, Kuldeep Purohit, Dev Kishan, Advocates.