Pigeon Hole Cross-Examination Only for Expert-Type Witness

‘Pigeon Hole’ Cross-Examination Allowed Only When Witness Deposes Like a Handwriting Expert: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 8 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court upheld a civil court's refusal to let a plaintiff confront a defence witness with only the signatures on documents while concealing their contents, the so-called ‘pigeon hole’ or ‘window’ method. The Evidence Act does not provide for it, and the Court held it may be allowed only where the witness deposes like a handwriting expert (paras 6.5, 6.13). A repeat application and the closure of cross-examination were also upheld (paras 7.4, 8.1).

Key holdings

Sections 138 and 145, and Sections 45, 47, 67 and 73, of the Evidence Act do not provide for hiding a document’s contents while confronting a witness (paras 6.2-6.6).

Ratanlal applies only where a witness gives a statement like a handwriting expert, denying signatures (paras 6.8-6.9).

A witness who cannot identify even his own signature without seeing the whole document is not an expert-type witness (para 6.10).

A fresh application seeking the same relief is in effect a review, barred by res judicata within the same suit (paras 7.1-7.4).

Closing cross-examination was upheld given repeated applications in a suit pending over 20 years (paras 8-8.1).

Brief Facts

Rajesh Kumar sued his relatives for declaration, partition and injunction over Marudhar Hotel, Pali, claiming it as joint Hindu family property; the defendants called the family settlement of 23.06.1988 forged (paras 2-2.2). Issues were framed in 2006 and the plaintiff's evidence has closed (para 2.3). During the defendants' evidence, he applied under Sections 138 and 145 of the Evidence Act to show the witness only the signatures, hiding the rest of the documents (paras 1, 2.4). The trial court refused on 17.09.2025, rejected a similar second application on 14.11.2025 and closed his cross-examination (paras 2.6-2.8). He relied on Ratanlal v. Kamla Devi (para 3).

Court's Findings

Section 138 governs the order of examination and Section 145 cross-examination on previous written statements; neither, nor Sections 45, 47, 67 and 73, provides for confronting a witness with one part of a document while hiding the rest (paras 6.2-6.5). Ratanlal allowed showing signatures on admitted documents only when a witness gives a statement like a handwriting expert, denying the signatures (para 6.8). Here the witness lacked expert knowledge and the confidence to recognise even his own signature unless the whole document was shown, so the premise for the method did not exist (paras 6.9-6.10). Following the Madras and Karnataka High Courts, which treated covering a document's contents as deceptive (paras 6.11-6.12), the Court held the method permissible only where the witness appears as an expert on handwriting or signatures; evidence so elicited is not conclusive and risks shaking even a truthful witness (para 6.13). The second application was in effect a review, barred by res judicata at a later stage of the same suit (paras 7-7.4). With one witness cross-examined since 14.10.2024 in a suit pending over 20 years, the Court found gross abuse of process and no ground for Article 227 interference (paras 8-9).

Legal Principle

The ‘pigeon hole’ or ‘window’ method, showing a witness only the signature on a document while concealing its contents, is not provided for in the Evidence Act. It may be permitted only where the witness deposes in the nature of a handwriting or signature expert, and evidence it elicits is not conclusive (paras 6.5, 6.10, 6.13).

Precedents Relied Upon

Ratanlal v. Smt. Kamla Devi 1992 AIR Rajasthan 1
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 3, 6
Showing a witness the signatures on admitted documents is permissible when he gives a statement like a handwriting expert, denying the signatures; relied on by the petitioner, held confined to that context and not attracted where the witness’s testimony is not of that nature.
Perumal v. V. Balasubramanian 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 158
Followed Discussed at ¶ 4, 6
Madras High Court disapproved the practice of showing a witness only the signature portion by blocking the rest of the document, as even a well-educated person may not identify his own signature shown in isolation; cited by the respondents.
Devaraj v. Dayarathini & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1662
Followed Discussed at ¶ 4, 6
Karnataka High Court held that the entire document must be shown when a witness is confronted with his signature, and covering or folding the contents to leave only the signature open is a deceptive method; the order records that the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against it on 19.11.2020; cited by the respondents.

View all precedents (8)

Chhabil Das v. Pappu 2007 (1) CCC 183 (SC)
Followed Discussed at ¶ 4, 7
The principle of res judicata applies at different stages of the same proceedings; applied to hold that a second application seeking the same relief was barred.
Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar & Anr. 2005 (1) CCC 725
Followed Discussed at ¶ 4, 7
Principles of res judicata apply at different stages of the same proceedings; an order made in the course of a proceeding that has become final binds the later stages.
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9
Cited on the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 over interlocutory orders of courts below.
Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 385
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9
Cited on the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 over interlocutory orders of courts below.
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9
Cited on the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 over interlocutory orders of courts below.

‘Pigeon Hole’ Cross-Examination Allowed Only When Witness Deposes Like a Handwriting Expert: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Juvenile Convicted of Murder: Children's Court Must Give Reasons for Fixed-Term Sentence, Rajasthan High Court Holds

Section 67 Statements and Vague 'Cooperation' Cannot Sustain NDPS Section 29 Charge: Rajasthan High Court Discharges Accused

Rajasthan High Court Restores LIC Employee’s Full Suspension Pay After Acquittal