What must the court do if evidence is objected to as not being relevant to the pleadings?

When evidence is objected to on the grounds of irrelevance, the court has a duty to ensure that all evidence presented is pertinent to the issues at hand. One appropriate response is to consider amending the pleadings if doing so would better serve the interests of justice and the merits of the case. This approach allows the court to refine the issues before it, ensuring that the evidence aligns with the relevant legal questions.

Amending the pleadings can help clarify the matters in dispute and may open the door for additional relevant evidence to be admitted, thereby enhancing the court's ability to reach an informed decision based on the facts and legal arguments presented. This reflects the principle of seeking to resolve cases on their merits, rather than dismissing them on procedural grounds.

Other options such as ignoring the objection, dismissing the case, or changing the venue do not effectively address the relevance of the evidence and the overall integrity of the judicial process. Instead, amending the pleadings aligns with procedural fairness and the goal of achieving just outcomes in litigation.