Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law relating to Evidence

A civil court admitted a document in evidence despite an objection that it was inadmissible, and decreed the suit. On appeal, it appears that, even leaving out that document, the remaining evidence was sufficient to justify the decree. Under the Adhiniyam, the appellate court should:

The appellate court should not reverse the decision or order a new trial on that ground alone. Improper admission of evidence is not itself a ground for reversal if, apart from that evidence, enough evidence remained to justify the decision.

  1. AOrder a new trial because improper admission is itself a ground for reversal
  2. BReverse the decree, since the objection was raised at trial
  3. CNot reverse or order a new trial on that ground aloneCorrect
  4. DOrder a new trial only if the document was the most important item of evidence

Explanation

Section 169 says improper admission or rejection of evidence is not of itself a ground for new trial or reversal if, independently of the objected evidence, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision. Options A and B ignore this.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law relating to Evidence shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law relating to EvidenceFree diagnostic mock

More Law relating to Evidence questions