Facts which though not in issue

It provides: The facts, which though not in issue, are so connected with the fact in issue so as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

The principle on which this section is based is the English Law doctrine of Res Gestae, though the section does not expressly make a mention of the term res gestae. And the doctrine of res gestae says that when in any suit or proceeding a transaction is the fact in issue then in such suit or proceeding evidence may be given of every fact which forms a part of that transaction.

Same Transaction As mentioned above for a fact to become relevant under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is necessary that such fact is so connected with the fact in issue so as to form part of the same transaction. In its etymological meaning the term refers to an affair or a carrying through, but for the purpose of the doctrine a specific definition of the term has been given by J.

According to him a transaction is: A group of facts together to be referred to by a single legal name, a crime, a contract, a wrong or any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue. And accordingly, the test to determine whether certain facts form part of the same transaction or not is whether they are so related to each other in terms of purpose or as cause and effect or as to constitute one continuous action.

Queen [ii] is an illustration on the point Here a man was charged with the murder of his wife. He defended himself in the court saying that the shot went off accidentally. But before the operator could connect call to the police the lady who spoke in distress gave her address and then the call ended suddenly.

Thereafter the police went to the address so given and found the dead body of a woman, that is, the wife of the accused. Lord Wilberforce delivering the judgement explained: The act of the deceased of calling the telephone operator and the words said by her on the call are relevant facts here as they form part of the same transaction which is in issue before the court.

And on the basis of these facts the accused was convicted for murder as no victim of an accident can even think of calling the police and ask for help before the happening.

Her call in distress clearly showed that the shooting in question was intentional rather than being accidental. Illustrations under section 6: i A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or by the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it, so as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.

The Time and Space Section 6 makes an express mention that it is not necessary the facts have occurred at the same time and place in order that they form part of the transaction in issue. This is so because no limitation can be imposed as to the length of time over which a transaction should extend. A transaction may get completed in a moment or may extend to days, months or even years. Similarly, no restriction can be applied as to the territory within which the transaction must take place, those like a sudden quarrel or shooting or stabbing may occur even in a room while those like a rebellion may cover an entire country.

For example, where a conspiracy is entered into by certain people to overthrow the government by force and for this purpose funds are collected at a place B , task force is trained at a place C and the arms are collected at a place D. All these acts are part of the same transaction though not occurring at the same places and time. A similar illustration is also attached to section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, A is accused of waging war against the government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and the gaols are broken open.

All these occurrences form part of the same transaction though A may not be present at all of them. Acts as Res Gestae As mentioned earlier in the case of Ratten v. Queen , the act of the deceased wife of calling the telephone operator and asking to connect her to the police, was res gestae. An illustration attached to section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, also illustrates the point: Where the question is whether certain goods were delivered in the performance of a contract, the fact that they were delivered to several intermediaries in the process of ultimate delivery to the buyer, is relevant, each successive delivery being a part of the transaction.

In the case of Sabir v. State of Rajasthan [iii]the witnesses reached the place of occurrence of crime and saw the accused fleeing away from there and thus chased him and eventually caught him in a situation where he was found with a blood-stained shirt, pent and shoes and was trying to wash them in the pond nearby. These facts are relevant under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, as they form part of the same transaction.

Omissions as Res Gestae It is not only an act that can be the part of a transaction but omissions too can be the same. The case of Milne v. Leisler [iv] is an illustration on the point. Here the question was whether a contract was made by the defendant in his personal capacity or as an agent for the plaintiff.

The facts of the case of the case were that the defendant had been the agent of plaintiff for quite a long time. And thus, the confidence reposed by the plaintiff in defendant was so high that defendant would enter into contracts on his behalf without even consulting him, if he found them to be beneficial. Admissions, if true and clear are by far the best proof of the facts admitted.

Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under section 58 of the evidence act, made by the parties or their agent at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions is fully binding on the party that makes them and constitutes a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties.

On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can b shown to be wrong. The admission in the pleadings or judicial admissions would obviously include both express admission as well as implied admission. Is carefully analyzed, there remains no escape from the conclusion that ven an implied admission, made in a written statement, is binding on the party making the admission, such admission constitute waiver of proof and cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment of the written statement, particularly, when the admission seeks to displace a plaintiff from the admission made by the defendant in his written statement.

Mahendra Radio and Telivision, Meerut v. State Bank of India, and Gobinda Sahoo v. Ram Chandra Nand a, lay down that an admission, made inadvertently or erroneously due to fault of an Advocate can be allowed even if the effect of such an amendment is to take away the admission made.

The question, therefore, is as to what remedy a defendant has when a wrong instruction or lack of instruction of his counsel lead to implied admission.

Sufficient light, on this aspect of law, is thrown by the decision in Badat and Company, for this decision show that ordinarily, the pleading should strictly construed and an implied admission shall not be, ordinarily, required to be proved by adducing evidence. What is important to note is that the proviso to rule 5 gives to the court the power to insist that notwithstanding the fact that there is an implied admission, because of non- traversing of a fact, the plaintiff proves his statement by adducing evidence.

The exercise of this discretion cannot be arbitrary and the court may have to bear in mind the standard of drafting obtaining at the place, where the suit is instituted. But a denial, in general terms imposes on the plaintiff an specifically alleged by a party in a plaint and are not denied by the other party, the party who fails to deny is deemed to have admitted the facts, which are alleged in the plaint.

Order VIII, Rule 5 of CPC says that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implications should be taken to be admitted except as against persons under disability.

Facts admitted by a party in a pleading are admissible against him without proof, but however, where he takes recourse to an amendment made in the pleading, the party cannot be permitted to go beyond his admission.

And another v. Ladha Ram and Co. In Panchdeo Narain Srivastav v. Jyoti Sahay and another, it has been held that an admission made by a party can be withdrawn and explained away; but court may notice that subsequently a division bench of apex court distinguished the said decision in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and others. Gaekwad and others v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad Dead through LRs.

And others, wherein it was categorically held that the judicial admission by themselves can be made the foundations of the rights of the parties and admission in the pleadings are admissible proprio vigore against the maker thereof. Recently apex court in Baldev Singh and others v. Manohar Singh and another etc. The rejection was made on the ground that inconsistent plea cannot be allowed to be taken.

We are unable to appreciate the ground of rejection made by high court as well as the trial court. After going through the pleadings and also the statement made in the application for amendment of the written statement, we fail to understand how inconsistent plea could be said to have been taken by the appellants in there application for amendment of the written statement, excepting the plea taken by the appellants in the application for amendment of written statement regarding the joint ownership of suit property.

Accordingly, on facts, we are not satisfied that the application for amendment of the written statement could be rejected also on this ground. That apart, it is not well settled that an amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle.

It is true that some general principles are certainly common to both, but the rules that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend his pleading so a s to alter materially or substitute his cause of action or the nature of his claim has necessarily no counter part in the law relating to amendment of the written statement.

Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action. Accordingly, in the case of amendment of written statement, the courts are inclined to be more liberal in allowing amendment of the written statement than of plaint and question of prejudice is less likely to operate with same rigour in the former than in latter case.

It is thus, evident that by taking recourse to an amendment made in the pleading, the party cannot be permitted to go beyond his admission. The principle would be applied in an industrial adjudication having regard to the nature of the reference made by the appropriate government as also in view of the fact that an industrial adjudication derives his jurisdiction from the reference only. There is another aspect of the matter which should also not be lost sight of.

For the purpose of exercisiong jurisdiction under section 10 of the act, the appropriate government is required to apply its mind. Its order may be an administrative one but the same would not be beyond the pale of judicial review. While doing so, it may be inappropriate for the same authority on the basis of material that a notification under section 10 1 d of the act be issued, although it stands judicially determine that the workmen were employed by the contractor.

The state exercises administrative power both in relation to abolition of contract labour in terms of section 10 of act as also in relation to making a reference for industrial adjudication to a labour court or tribunal under section 10 1 d of the act. While issuing a notification under the act, the state would have to proceed on the basis that the principle employer had appointed contractors and such appointments are valid in law, but while referring a dispute for industrial adjudication, validity of the appointment of the contractor would itself be an issue as the state must prima facie satisfy itself that there exist a dispute as to whether the workmen in fact not employed by the contractor but by the management.

The Trial Court after observing the reports and testimonies of the accused persons and witnesses of the cases convicted the accused persons. In the light of the above provisions from the Indian Evidence Act and the judicial decisions, it can be concluded that facts judicially noticeable by the Courts, such as laws operating in India; articles of war; governmental seals; facts related to legislative, executive and judicial proceedings in India or any other Sovereign or State recognized by the government of India; the rule of the road, at the land or at sea, etc; need not be proved by the parties to a Suit.

It is imperative for providing evidence under Section 57 that exact words and not the gist of the assertion is necessary for the purpose of conviction as mere gist is insufficient.

Also, every notification or order made by the Central Government under the empowerment of any legislation is deemed as an operating law under Section Also, the facts admitted by the parties to a suit either prior to or at the hearing by themselves or their agents need not be endorsed with evidence. Such admission includes written admission. LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities.

You can click on this link and join:. Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Check your mailbox for the joining link. From Bhawna Agarwal: [email protected].

Sign in. Password recovery. Forgot your password? Get help. Table of Contents. Challenges faced while working at law firms and how to overcome them. Contempt of the Parliament House in India and examples of contempt in recent times. Admissibility of pre-contractual negotiations. Please enter your comment! Please enter your name here. You have entered an incorrect email address! Powered by iPleaders.