The ‘lex fori’ is, in Anglo-American practice, deemed determinative on the general principle that procedure is governed by the rules of the forum, and the Law of Evidence is part of the Law of Procedure. With this result practical convenience also coincides. [Bain v. Whitehaven Railway Co. 3 HL Cas 1, 19, per Lord Brougham]. The law of evidence is a branch of adjective law and, therefore, all questions of evidence must be decided according to the law of the forum in which the action is tried. [in the matter of Rudolf Stallman, 39 C 164, 185; Bain v. Whitehaven Ry. Co. 3 HLC 1, 19]. Even, where evidence had been received from aboard, having been taken there on commission or otherwise, its admissibility is determined by the law of the country where the action is being tried. [Foote’s Priv. International Law, 5th Ed, 569]. Where the question is one of the proper method proving an event which occurred in England, the law applicable is the Indian, and not the English law of evidence. [Niharendu Dutt v. E., 200 IC 289].
A suit can be instituted for personal relief against a defendant in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant is residing or carrying on business on the date of the institution of the suit wherever the cause of action for the suit had arisen, and to such a suit, the provisions of the Statute of Limitation in force in the country of the forum, i.e. the lex fori would apply. [(1958) 1 Mad L. Jour 396]. [Section 15, Limitation Act, 1963].