Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.

Comments:

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Principle:

Facts admitted by the parties or their agents need not be proved. Section 58 lays down that if the parties to the proceeding or their agents agree to admit a fact at the hearing or which they agree to admit by writing under their hands before hearing or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time, they are deemed to have admitted by their pleading, it need not be proved. “They be themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties.” Even implied admission cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment of written statement. Admission is the best evidence that can be relied upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous.

According to Section 58 if the parties to a proceeding or their agents agree to admit, they are deemed to have been admitted:

(a) At the hearing, or

(b) By writing before the hearing, or

(c) Which by any rule of pleading in force they are deemed to have admitted by the pleading, need not be proved by the opposite party.

Scope of application:

Although under section 58 admission made by the parties and their agents need not require to be proved; it is not conclusive proof of the fact admitted. Section 58 postulates that things admitted need not be proved. It may operate as estoppel. Under Order 12, Rule 6 of the CPC the court is not bound by admission of the parties and their agents. The court may exercise its discretion to demand some other proof. In Mahendra Munilal Nanavati v Sushi la Nanavati the Supreme Court held that there was no good reason for the view that the court cannot act on admissions of the parties in proceeding under the Act. Admission in civil cases may be accepted or rejected as a whole. Attempt to resile from admission by way of an amendment is not punishable. A will which was neither registered nor its alteration proved, was not allowed to be used in evidence even though it was admitted. This section vests discretion in the court to require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. Where a sub-tenant was kept by the tenant who admitted the fact, the court held that a mere admission is not enough, some further proof should be insisted upon.

It is a settled law that the formal admission which was not contradicted is binding in subsequent proceeding. A party having once denied cannot subsequently admit the fact. An admission of fact on a particular ground is not binding in a other case. Admission made in affidavit unless explained furnishes best evidence. It is well settled rule that admission made previously can be allowed to be explained in order to know that it was erroneous.

Admission in Criminal Cases:

In criminal cases the rules of evidence are that the prosecution is under duty to prove the case against the accused and that they should not rely upon admission made by him in the course of the trial for convicting him. An accused cannot be convicted upon the admission of his pleader. An admission by the accused in answer to question put by the court under section 313, Cr. PC cannot be utilized to fill up a gap in the evidence for the prosecution. Where a magistrate tries a warrant case as a summons case, a conviction on accuser’s own admission without taking evidence and not framing charge, will be set aside.

Petitions alleged mismanagement by directors of a company by committing fraud. Admission made by petitioner in her pleading as regard broad baring of the company and issuance of 6475 shares in favour of appellate directors, any attempt to resile from admission by way of amendment is not permissible. Lawyer’s incorrect instructions, omissions or failure leading to making of an implied admission cannot be allowed to be withdrawn, but the plaintiff can be insisted upon to prove his case.

Proviso:

According to Proviso the Court by its discretion requires some order evidence to support the admitted facts. If the court is convinced that the admission was obtained by fraud, collusion or there is suspicion about admission it may require the fact to be proved otherwise than by such admission. In the matter of a petition for divorce by the husband on the ground of adultery of the wife, the proviso will enable the court to insist on proof even when adultery is admitted.