Short answer. The Court of Appeals weighs the new evidence together with everything already presented at the trial below, and it may grant or deny the new trial, order further testimony to be taken in court or by deposition, or simply render whatever judgment it finds just.

What the law says

The Court of Appeals shall consider the new evidence together with that adduced at the trial below, and may grant or refuse a new trial, or may make such order, with notice to both parties, as to the taking of further testimony, either orally in court, or by depositions, or render such other judgment as ought to be rendered upon such terms as it may deem just.

Rule 53, Section 2 — Hearing and order. Read the full provision →

Evaluating old and new evidence together

Rule 53, Section 2 does not ask the Court of Appeals to look at the newly discovered evidence in isolation. Instead, the court weighs it alongside the evidence already adduced at the trial in the lower court, forming a single, combined picture of the case before deciding what to do with the motion for new trial. This combined evaluation is what lets the court decide whether the new evidence would actually change the outcome, rather than simply asking whether it is new.

A menu of options, not just yes or no

The section gives the court several possible responses beyond a simple grant or denial. It may order further testimony to be taken, either through live testimony in court or through depositions, with notice to both sides so neither is caught unaware. This flexibility lets the court tailor its response to what the new evidence actually requires — sometimes a full retrial is unnecessary if the point can be resolved with a narrower additional proceeding.

The court can go straight to judgment

Notably, the section also allows the court to skip ordering a new trial altogether and simply render whatever judgment it deems just on the terms it considers appropriate. This means the newly discovered evidence can sometimes lead directly to a revised outcome without the formality of reopening trial proceedings, where the combined record already makes the correct result clear enough that a full retrial would serve no real purpose.

Why the court gets this much flexibility

Newly discovered evidence can vary enormously in how much additional proceeding it actually requires — sometimes a single deposition resolves the open question, sometimes nothing further is needed at all, and sometimes a genuine new trial is the only fair way forward. Giving the Court of Appeals this menu of responses, instead of a rigid choice between granting or denying a new trial outright, lets the remedy fit the actual gap the new evidence reveals.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.