Article 86: Court control over evidence

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2582/2564 (2021)

   Under Section 86 paragraph two, the court may dispense with taking evidence that causes undue delay, such as ceasing to examine a witness who has disappeared and cannot be located despite the party's efforts to find them.

   Where the plaintiff wished to examine a witness but that witness had left her registered address and could not be found despite efforts to trace her, the trial court ordered the examination of that witness to be dispensed with under Section 86 paragraph two. The court treated the disappearance as a proper reason and went on to consider related hearsay-admissibility questions.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1480/2563 (2020)

   Evidence adduced beyond the pleadings and the framed issues is irrelevant under Section 86 paragraph two and cannot be admitted, being outside the facts the parties must prove.

   Because good faith of the third defendant was not a framed issue, evidence the plaintiffs adduced to show the defendant took the mortgage in bad faith went beyond the pleadings and outside the issues. The court held such evidence was irrelevant under Section 86 paragraph two and could not be admitted, aligning with the requirement in Section 87 (1) that evidence relate to facts the parties must prove.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3535/2560 (2017)

   Where there is reason to doubt whether the deceased made the will relied on, the court has power under the last paragraph of section 86 to call for evidence of its own motion, such as the deceased's bank account opening application and specimen signatures, in order to compare them. No law requires the court to give the applicant a further opportunity to adduce evidence.

   The applicant had earlier applied to administer the estate on the footing that the deceased had made no will, and that application was dismissed because he was neither a statutory heir nor an interested person. He then applied in this case claiming that the deceased had willed him the whole estate. Since there was reason to doubt whether the deceased had made a will, the Court held the trial court had power under the last paragraph of section 86 to call for the deceased's savings account opening application and specimen signatures from Bank K. and take them in evidence. The complaint that he was given no chance to adduce further evidence failed, since no law so requires and he had the opportunity but did not ask before the order was made.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.