Explanation:

This question tests the understanding of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically concerning the admissibility of statements made by persons who cannot be called as witnesses. The scenario involves a statement from a deceased person's diary, made in the ordinary course of business, which is a classic example of a specific type of relevant fact under the Act. Let's analyze the relevant sections: * **Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:** This section deals with cases in which statements of relevant facts by persons who are dead or cannot be found, etc., are themselves relevant. It has several sub-sections, each addressing different circumstances under which such statements become admissible. * **Option (1) Section 32(5):** This sub-section makes relevant statements relating to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption, made by a person having special means of knowledge, and made before the question in dispute was raised. The statement in the question is about a business meeting and A's presence, not about the existence of a relationship. Therefore, this option is incorrect. * **Option (2) Section 32(2):** This is the correct answer. Section 32(2) states that a statement is relevant when it was made by a person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular, when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty. The scenario perfectly fits this description: a statement in the diary of a *deceased Solicitor* (a person who cannot be called as a witness), *regularly kept in the course of business* (ordinary course of business/professional duty), recording that he *attended 'A' at a place mentioned, in Calcutta, for the purpose of conferring with him upon specified business*. This entry directly relates to the fact in issue (A's presence in Calcutta) and is admissible under this provision. * **Option (3) Section 32(3):** This sub-section makes relevant statements against the interest of the maker, i.e., when the statement is against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the person making it, or when, if true, it would expose him or would have exposed him to a criminal prosecution or to a suit for damages. The solicitor's diary entry about a business meeting is not against his interest in this context. Therefore, this option is incorrect. * **Option (4) Section 11:** Section 11 deals with the relevancy of facts not otherwise relevant. It states that facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact, or if they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. While A's presence in Calcutta is a fact in issue, Section 11 determines *if* a fact is relevant. Section 32, on the other hand, determines *how* a specific type of evidence (a statement by a deceased person) *proves* a relevant fact. The specific admissibility of the diary entry is governed by Section 32(2), not Section 11, which is a broader provision for circumstantial evidence. Therefore, this option is incorrect. Thus, the statement in the deceased solicitor's diary is relevant under Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as it is a statement made in the ordinary course of business by a person who cannot be called as a witness.