Difference between Facts in Issue and Relevant Facts are mentioned below:
The words “relevancy of facts” have been used in the title of Part-I, and also in the heading of Chapter-ll. The words “Facts” in issue are not used in the title or in the heading, except in the heading of Section 5 that too showing that “Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Only one Section is allotted for “Facts in issue”, whereas fifty five Sections are allotted to “Relevant Facts”. The words “Relevancy of Facts” in the title and heading, and the provisions allotted from Sections 6 to 55 to “Relevancy of Facts” signify two distinct senses.
One sense is the admissibility of evidence; and another sense is the probative force of such evidence. Where a fact is proved as relevant fact, then the probative value of such a relevant fact influences on the fact in issue.
Image Source: 185.26.182.219
Facts in issue are predetermined “by the Court basing upon the facts of the case. This stage is called “Framing of Issues” Later the Court looks into the relevancy of the facts in supporting or denying those facts in issue.
Therefore, the facts in issue are fixed first, and later evidence is allowed to prove the facts. If the facts proved by admissible evidence then only they become relevant facts, and then they play vital role in deciding the case.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In fixing the facts in issue, and allowing admissible evidence, the Court is given abundant discretionary power. However, once the facts are proved as relevant facts, the Court is bound to give its decision within the boundaries of such proven relevant facts.