Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedSmt. Deu Bai v. Laluram & Ors.
2026:RJ-JD:40893
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8018/2026
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 20 August 2026
- Bench
- Justice Farjand Ali
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VIII Rule 1(3), Section 151; Constitution of India — Article 227
Final Outcome
Writ petition dismissed; the order of 23.03.2026 declining to take the original handwriting expert report on record affirmed; observations confined to the report's production, with no opinion on the merits; no order as to costs (paras 8-9).
Key holdings
- Alleging that a signature was obtained by deception differs from denying its authorship (para 6.2).
- Producing the original document does not by itself entitle a party to file it at a belated stage (paras 6.4-6.5).
- A handwriting expert's opinion is not conclusive, even if labelled an FSL report (paras 6.7-6.10).
- Evidence can support a pleaded case but cannot furnish the foundation of an unpleaded one (para 6.15).
- The trial court's refusal involved no error warranting interference under Article 227 (paras 7-7.1).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
In Civil Original Suit No. 18/2015 the plaintiffs sought specific performance and an injunction on an agreement to sell of 17.02.2002 said to have been executed by the petitioner's late mother (para 2). The petitioner-defendant pleaded that her mother had been taken to court on the pretext of mutation proceedings and that signatures on a ‘Sahmati Patra’ of 07.07.2008 were obtained under a false pretext; she later obtained a private handwriting expert's report of 04.05.2017 finding the signatures dissimilar (para 2). A photocopy of the report was refused on 02.09.2022, and on 23.03.2026 the Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur rejected her application under Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC to file the original (paras 1, 2.1).
Court's Findings
The written statement did not plead that the signatures were not the mother's or were forged; it alleged only that they were procured under a false pretext, which is a different case from disputing authorship (paras 6.1-6.2, 6.11). Producing the original cured the earlier defect of form but gave no absolute right to file the report, whose relevance and delay still had to be examined (paras 6.4-6.5). A handwriting expert's opinion, even in a report labelled FSL, is not conclusive scientific proof; it is one piece of evidence that cannot supplant the court's own assessment (paras 6.7-6.10). Evidence may support, corroborate or strengthen a pleaded case, but cannot supply a material fact never pleaded, and this report would introduce an unpleaded issue of authorship (paras 6.13-6.17). It had also existed since 2017 without a satisfactory explanation for its late production (para 6.18). There was no perversity or failure of justice calling for interference under Article 227 (paras 7-7.2).
Legal Principle
A party may lead evidence to prove facts it has pleaded but cannot use evidence to supply a material fact never pleaded; where the defence alleges only that a signature was obtained by deception, a handwriting expert's report on authorship travels beyond the pleadings and may be refused (paras 6.13, 6.15, 6.17).
