Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a civil writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The petitioner, a defendant in Civil Original Suit No. 18/2015, challenged an order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Udaipur, rejecting her application under Order VIII Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to place on record an original handwriting expert/FSL report. The underlying suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for specific performance and permanent injunction based on an agreement to sell dated 17.02.2002 allegedly executed by the petitioner's late mother, Smt. Debubai. The petitioner-defendant pleaded that her mother had been taken to court on the pretext of mutation proceedings and her signatures were obtained on a document called 'Sahmati Patra' dated 07.07.2008 under a false pretext. To support this defence, the petitioner obtained an opinion from a private handwriting expert/SIFS, culminating in a report dated 04.05.2017 opining that the disputed signatures did not correspond with the specimen signatures of Smt. Debubai. The petitioner initially sought to place a photocopy of the report on record, but the trial court by order dated 02.09.2022 declined to take it on record because the original report had not been produced. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the application in question to place the original report on record, which the trial court dismissed on 23.03.2026, leading to the writ petition. The core questions were whether the original expert report could be admitted despite the absence of a specific pleading challenging the authorship of the signature, whether the earlier rejection of the photocopy gave the petitioner a right to produce the original, and what evidentiary value a handwriting expert report carries. The petitioner argued that the trial court adopted a technical approach, the earlier objection was only about photocopy, and the original report was material and would cause no prejudice. The respondents contended that the petitioner had not pleaded forgery or that the signature was not her mother's, the report existed for several years without explanation for delay, and expert opinion is not conclusive. The High Court emphasized that the question was not merely whether the document existed in original form but whether its production at that stage was legally permissible and relevant to the pleaded case. It noted that the written statement did not specifically allege that the signature was not that of Smt. Debubai or was forged; the defence was only that the signature was obtained by deception. This distinction was crucial because handwriting comparison has direct relevance only when authorship is denied. The court further held that production of the original after rejection of a photocopy does not confer an absolute right; the court must still examine relevance, delay, and sufficient cause. It also observed that a handwriting expert's opinion, even if described as FSL, is not conclusive or binding; the court must independently assess it against other evidence. Thus, even an opinion of dissimilarity would not by itself establish forgery. The final operative order is not included in the provided text due to truncation, but the court's reasoning strongly indicates that the writ petition was likely to be dismissed and the trial court's rejection upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Belated Production of Documents - Order VIII Rule 1(3) and Section 151 CPC - A party cannot assert an indefeasible right to produce an original document merely because an earlier photocopy was rejected; the court must consider relevance, delay, and sufficient cause. - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VIII Rule 1(3) and Section 151 - The trial court had earlier rejected a photocopy of an FSL report for non-production of the original; the petitioner later sought to produce the original. The High Court held that production of the original does not dispense with the necessity of examining whether the document is relevant to the pleaded case and whether sufficient cause exists for its belated production. Held that the entire matter including nature of report, pleadings, stage of proceedings, and explanation for delay must be examined before exercising discretion (Paras 6.4-6.5). B) Civil Procedure - Pleadings and Evidence - Distinction Between Fraudulent Inducement and Forgery of Signature - Absence of specific pleading challenging authorship of signature renders handwriting expert report of limited direct relevance. - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VIII Rule 1(3) and Section 151 - The written statement alleged that the mother was taken to court on a false pretext and signatures obtained by deception, but did not specifically plead that the signature was not hers or was forged. The court held that an allegation of signature procured by deception is different from denial of authorship; only the latter puts handwriting in issue. Held that a party cannot introduce at the stage of evidence a document which creates or materially enlarges a factual controversy not set up in pleadings (Paras 6.1-6.3). C) Law of Evidence - Expert Opinion - Evidentiary Value of Handwriting Expert Report - The report, though described as FSL, is essentially an expert opinion and not conclusive; the court must independently evaluate it. - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 227 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - The court observed that an expert's opinion based on handwriting comparison cannot be elevated to conclusive scientific proof solely because of the nomenclature 'FSL'. The expert does not perform the adjudicatory function and cannot supplant the court's own assessment. Held that even an opinion of dissimilarity cannot by itself conclusively establish forgery (Paras 6.6-6.10). D) Constitution - Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Scope of Interference with Interlocutory Orders - High Court should not interfere unless the order is perverse or causes grave injustice; here the trial court's rejection was reasoned. - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 227 - The petitioner invoked Article 227 to challenge the trial court's order rejecting production of a handwriting expert report. The High Court, after examining the pleadings and the nature of the report, found no error in the trial court's approach. Held that the requirement of specific pleading and the non-conclusive nature of the expert opinion justified the rejection (Paras 5-6.11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner-defendant was entitled to place on record the original FSL/handwriting expert report under Order VIII Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC despite absence of specific pleading challenging authorship of signature; whether the opinion of a handwriting expert is conclusive evidence of forgery and whether its production at a belated stage is permissible without sufficient cause
Final Decision
Not mentioned (judgment text truncated before final operative order); however the court's reasoning indicates rejection of the petitioner's challenge and upholding of the trial court's order.
Law Points
- A party cannot introduce at the stage of evidence a document which creates or materially enlarges a factual controversy not specifically pleaded
- an allegation that a signature was obtained by deception differs from an allegation that the signature is not that of the executant
- production of original after rejection of photocopy does not confer an absolute right
- handwriting expert opinion is not conclusive or binding on the court
