A counterclaim operates as a cross-suit, and its adjudication conclusively determines rights independent of the original suit. Dismissal of the plaintiff's suit and a decree on the defendant's counterclaim constitute distinct decrees even where they arise from a common judgment or formal decree. Each adjudication requires a separate appeal. Failure to independently challenge either determination permits it to attain finality and may trigger res judicata; consequently, a single composite appeal is not maintainable.

Character is relevant in civil proceedings where it affects the amount of damages to be assessed. Character includes reputation and disposition, but evidence is ordinarily limited to general reputation and general disposition rather than particular acts used to demonstrate either quality. This limitation remains subject to the applicable exception for character evidence.

Previous bad character of an accused is generally irrelevant in criminal proceedings, but becomes relevant where evidence of good character has been given in reply. The exclusion does not apply if a person's bad character is itself a fact in issue, and a previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character.

Consent in specified sexual-offence prosecutions cannot be assessed by reference to the victim's character or previous sexual experience. Where consent or the quality of consent is in issue in prosecutions for listed Indian Penal Code offences or attempts, such evidence is legally irrelevant.

Previous good character of a person accused in criminal proceedings is recognised as a relevant fact. The relevance applies to the accused person's good character in a criminal case, permitting that character circumstance to be considered among facts relevant to issues arising in proceedings under the evidentiary framework governing criminal matters.

Character evidence in civil cases is irrelevant when tendered solely to show that a person was likely or unlikely to have engaged in conduct imputed to that person. Such character may be considered only to the extent that it emerges from facts independently relevant to the issues. The rule prevents character from serving as standalone proof of alleged conduct.

Where the opinion of a living person is relevant, the grounds on which that opinion rests are also relevant. This permits proof of the factual, technical, or experiential basis used to form an admissible opinion, enabling assessment of its reliability and evidentiary value. An expert may describe experiments performed for the purpose of forming the expert opinion.

Opinion evidence on personal relationships is relevant when expressed through conduct by a family member or another person with special means of knowledge. Conduct showing that persons were treated as husband and wife, or that an individual was treated as a legitimate child by family members, may support the asserted relationship. Such evidence alone is insufficient to prove marriage in divorce proceedings or specified matrimonial criminal prosecutions.

Opinions of persons with special means of knowledge are relevant where a court must determine usages or tenets of a body of persons or family, the constitution or governance of a religious or charitable foundation, or the meaning of expressions used in particular districts or by particular classes.

Section 48 treats as relevant the opinions of persons likely to know whether a general custom or right exists when that issue requires determination. A general custom or right includes one common to a considerable class of persons, including villagers' right to use water from a particular village well.

Section 47A treats the opinion of the Certifying Authority issuing an Electronic Signature Certificate as a relevant fact when a court must form an opinion on a person's electronic signature. Its evidentiary relevance is confined to the issuing Certifying Authority. The provision's terminology was later updated from digital signatures and Digital Signature Certificates to electronic signatures and Electronic Signature Certificates.

Opinion evidence on handwriting is a relevant fact where authorship or signature of a document is in issue, provided the witness is acquainted with the alleged writer's handwriting. Such acquaintance may result from seeing the person write, receiving purportedly authored replies to communications, or routinely handling purportedly authored documents in ordinary business dealings. Personal observation of the person writing is not essential; correspondents, clerks handling correspondence, and business advisers may offer relevant opinions on authorship.

Facts bearing on expert opinions become relevant, though independently irrelevant, when they support or contradict an expert opinion that is relevant to the issue. Comparative evidence may test the reliability and evidentiary weight of expert conclusions, including evidence of symptoms in other poison-exposure cases or similar harbour conditions bearing on causation of obstruction.

Section 45A treats the opinion of an Examiner of Electronic Evidence as a relevant fact where an opinion is required concerning information transmitted or stored in a computer resource or other electronic or digital form. The Examiner is treated as an expert for this purpose.

Expert opinion evidence is relevant where forming an opinion requires specialised knowledge of foreign law, science, art, identity of handwriting, or finger impressions. The opinion must be given by a person specially skilled in the relevant field, who is treated as an expert. Relevant applications include medical opinions concerning poisoning or unsoundness of mind, and expert comparison of disputed writing with admitted or proved handwriting.

Section 44 permits any party to a suit or other proceeding to challenge a judgment, order, or decree relied upon and proved by the adverse party where it is relevant under the provisions governing prior judgments. The party may establish that the deciding court lacked competence or that the judgment was procured through fraud or collusion.

Judgments, orders and decrees outside sections 40, 41 and 42 are generally irrelevant unless their existence is a fact in issue or they are independently relevant under another provision. A prior adjudication involving other parties ordinarily cannot establish disputed facts in later proceedings. It may, however, be relevant to show motive, while a previous conviction is relevant when it is itself a fact in issue.

Judgments, orders and decrees concerning matters of a public nature may be relevant to an enquiry even when they do not fall within section 41. Their relevance does not make them conclusive proof of the facts stated. A prior decree concerning an asserted public right of way may therefore be considered in a later trespass dispute, without conclusively establishing the existence of that right.

Final judgments, orders or decrees of competent courts exercising probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction are relevant where they confer, remove or declare a legal character, or declare absolute entitlement to a specific thing. Such adjudications constitute conclusive proof of the legal character or title declared, including the time at which that character accrued or ceased, or the property became vested.

Previous judgments, orders or decrees that legally prevent a court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial are relevant facts. Their existence is relevant when determining whether the court ought to take cognizance of that suit or hold that trial, in relation to a legal bar against a second suit or trial.