Court says evidence cannot be used to introduce a new defence at the evidence stage; trial court order upheld under Article 227
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed two connected civil writ petitions filed by Bihari Lal, upholding a trial court’s refusal to allow a handwriting expert’s report to be introduced at the evidence stage in a long-pending specific performance suit.
Justice Farjand Ali held that a party cannot be permitted to lead evidence that is not supported by its pleadings. The Court observed that pleadings form the foundation of a case, and evidence must remain confined to the factual assertions already made in the written statement. Allowing a new factual basis to be introduced through an expert report at an advanced stage of trial would, the Court said, alter the nature of the dispute and prejudice the opposite party.
The petitions challenged an order dated 15 May 2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara, in Civil Suit No. 59/2008. In that suit, the plaintiff had sought specific performance of contract and possession, while the defendant attempted to place on record a handwriting expert’s report after the matter had already entered the evidentiary stage.
The trial court had rejected the defendant’s application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and also allowed the plaintiff’s application under Order VI Rule 2 CPC for removal of the handwriting expert’s affidavit from the record. The High Court found no jurisdictional error, perversity, or procedural illegality in that order.
The Court noted that the defendant’s written statement did not contain any specific plea alleging that the signature on the agreement was forged or fabricated. Since no such foundation had been laid in the pleadings, the Court said the defendant could not later attempt to introduce expert evidence to support a new line of defence.
Justice Farjand Ali further emphasized the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that Article 227 is not meant to function as an appellate remedy or for reappreciation of evidence. Interference is justified only where there is patent perversity, manifest illegality, or jurisdictional error.
Finding the trial court’s reasoning legally sound and factually justified, the High Court dismissed both petitions and disposed of all pending applications.
Bottom Line :
A party cannot introduce evidence that is not supported by its pleadings, as it would amount to altering the nature of the case and causing prejudice to the opposing party. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, patent perversity, or procedural impropriety.
Statutory provision(s): Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, Order VI Rule 2 CPC, Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Bihari Lal v. Navratanmal Bamb, (Raj) : Law Finder Doc id # 2981365
