Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter III: Facts Which Need Not Be Proved
Section 58: Facts admitted need not be proved
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 58
-
Rajeev Gupta & Ors. v. Prashant Garg & Ors.
Issue arose whether the suit was barred by limitation; whether the sale deeds were void documents; whether the Will stood admitted in the previous suits and was no longer required to be proved; whether the First…
-
Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal
In view of the unequivocal admission made by the defendant in his written statement, whether the High Court was right in decreeing the suit for recovery of possession applying Or.XII r.6 of the CPC thereby, affirming…
-
Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors.
Whether the order dated 05.08.1991 (vide which application u/ rr.5 and 10 of Or.VIII, CPC was allowed by the Trial Court for pronouncement of judgment against defendant no.2 in the suit) suffered from a jurisdictional…
- Cpl Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding
- Harendra Rai v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
- Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan
- Sukhbiri Devi & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.
- Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar
- Kavita Kanwar v. Mrs. Pamela Mehta & Ors.
- Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) Thr. Lrs.& Another v. Shivnath & Others
- M/S Alagu Pharmacy & Ors. v. N. Magudeswari
- Ram Niranjan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and Others
- The Gujarat Maritime Board v. G.C. Pandya