Litigants occasionally point at someone else when a fact is disputed: "Go and ask C — C knows all about it." When a party makes that kind of open reference to a third person for information, and the third person then makes a statement, the statement's evidentiary character in the party's own case is not obvious. Section 18 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) settles the point: statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.
18. Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit. Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.
Illustration.
The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound.
A says to B—"Go and ask C, C knows all about it". C's statement is an admission.
Section 18 reproduces Section 20 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) without any change in wording. The BPRD BSA-to-IEA correspondence table records "No change." It closes the trio of sections (16 to 18) that identifies whose admissions bind whom.
The section's underlying logic
The section rests on a straightforward evidentiary logic: a party who directs their opponent to a specific person for information on the disputed matter, effectively holds that person out as knowing the truth. Having appointed that person as the party's own reference source, they cannot then complain when the referred person's statement is used against them. It is a form of adoption by reference — the party's act of pointing to the third person adopts, in advance, whatever the third person will say on that specific matter.
Three cumulative conditions
All three must be present. Where any one fails, the third person's statement does not become an admission of the party under Section 18 — though it might still be admissible on some other basis, such as an ordinary witness statement or an admission of an authorised agent under Section 16.
The horse-soundness illustration
The illustration is deliberately homely. A is selling B a horse; B is worried about the horse's soundness. A says: "Go and ask C, C knows all about it." B then goes to C, who says the horse has a defect. In a later dispute between A and B over the horse's soundness, C's statement is an admission binding on A — even though A did not know what C would say, and even though C is not A's agent in any employment sense. The act of reference is what completes the loop. A pointed to C as the authoritative source; C's statement is now C's word, but attributable to A for evidentiary purposes.
Sitting alongside Sections 16 and 17
| Section | Whose admission it captures |
|---|---|
| 16 | The party themselves, their agent (expressly or impliedly authorised), and persons interested/predecessors in interest in specified situations |
| 17 | Persons whose position or liability must be proved as against a party, where the statement would be relevant against them personally in a suit brought by or against them |
| 18 | Persons expressly referred to by the party to the suit for information on a matter in dispute |
The three sections work as a set. Section 16 captures the party's own admissions and those of authorised agents. Section 17 extends admissibility to statements by persons whose position or liability the case turns on. Section 18 completes the set by capturing the "expressly referred to" third party. Together, they define the universe of persons whose statements can be treated as admissions binding on a party to the suit.
Why "expressly" matters
The word "expressly" is doing careful work. The section does not extend to persons who merely happen to have knowledge, or to persons the party has spoken about but not directed the opposite party to consult. Nor does it extend to a party's general acknowledgement that certain people know a lot about the industry, the neighbourhood, or the transaction. What the section wants is a defined act of reference — a specific direction to seek information from a specific person on a specific disputed matter. This narrow trigger is what prevents the section from being a general licence to attribute any knowledgeable person's statement to a party who once mentioned them.
Practical use in litigation
Section 18 is most often invoked in commercial and property disputes, where informal references to third-party sources are common. In sale-of-goods disputes about condition or quality, sellers commonly refer buyers to a specialist for verification, and Section 18 makes the specialist's statement bindable on the seller. In construction and technical disputes, references to architects, engineers, or subject-matter experts perform the same function. In neighbourhood or family disputes, references to elders or long-time residents can trigger Section 18. In all these settings, the section places the risk of the referred person's statement squarely on the party who chose to refer.
Key Takeaways
- Reference creates admission: where a party expressly refers an opposite party to a third person for information on a matter in dispute, the third person's statement is an admission of the party.
- Three cumulative conditions: express reference, for information, on a matter in dispute.
- "Expressly" is narrow: incidental mentions of knowledgeable persons do not trigger the section.
- Not an assertion of truth: the referred person's statement becomes admissible as an admission — the party can still rebut it.
- Unchanged from Section 20 IEA: the recodification preserved the provision verbatim.
Conclusion
Section 18 closes the small "whose admissions bind whom" cluster in Chapter II with an unusually specific rule: it treats the party's own choice to nominate a third-party informant as a form of evidentiary adoption. The referral is what makes the statement bindable — not employment, not agency, not any relationship of interest, but simply the party's deliberate act of pointing to the other person as the source. Reproduced verbatim from Section 20 IEA, the section continues to catch the class of statements that would otherwise slip through the admissions net just because the maker was neither the party nor the party's agent.