DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

TOPIC- Denial of Claim must be specific in Written Statement

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED FROM:
Dr. Radheshyam Prasad Monisha Purwar
Assistant Professor Roll no. 85
National Law University, Lucknow IVth Semester

Page | 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank my Code of Civil Procedure’s Teacher, Dr. Radheshyam Prasad

for having provided me with the inspiration and guidance for this project. Without their help

this project wouldn’t have been possible. I would also wish to thank our Vice-Chancellor who

constantly exhorts us to deliver our best at every level. I would also express my gratitude

towards my seniors who were a source of constant support and inspiration. Lastly, yet equally

importantly, I am grateful to my family and my friends for supporting me all the way through

the making of this project.

Page | 2

.......................................................................................................10 Rule 4 Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure....19 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................17 Case 1: Asha Kapoor v...................................8 Rule 13 of the Order 18 of the Supreme Court Rules..................................................................................................14 Rule 5 Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure.......................18 Case 2: Athiyappan v........................... 1908.......................21 Page | 3 ........................................16 Case Analysis................15 Meaning of terms...................10 Rule 3 Order VIII of Civil Procedure Code....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1908...................... Pavayee.....................................................18 Case 2: Dinesh Kumar Singhania v............................6 Supreme Court Rules............................................................................................................................................. Calcutta Stock Exchange..................... Hari Om Sharda......................................................... 1908................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1965..................................8 Rule 12 of Order 18 of the Supreme Court Rules........................... TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................... 1965....................... 1908...............20 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION.8 Code of Civil Procedure................................ 1965.......................2 TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................

Page | 4 .

...................13 Govindram v............. ( 1949) P................. 546 (D....................................C.........13 Chothram v.. (1934) R......14 Chettier Firm v.................................... 102........................................... A.................. (1980) D. Calcutta Stock Exchange...... 538....19 Athiyappan v.. 2225......... Dharam....... 77............................. (1964) S................................T............................. Abid........ 840..C.................... (1989) Gauhati 74. 743.. (2003) S....... 601.C...... (2005) 2 C............C..... 55.... (1931) A.....14 Ganga v.................................. Stock Exchange Ascocn.... (1959) P............. Ltd. (1994) 2 A.......I.. 394.....16 Dinesh Kumar Singhania v...............16 Desi Kedari v.......... Kshetra Mohan Dutta...............L......... Prem.19 Faquir v............11 Badat & Co........ New India Ins..........11 Dinesh K....................... 76.....13 Hari v....... 5381.... Govind........ East India Trading Co............... A........................ Singhania v...L......................... 539......... Huzurabad Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd...... Khem............... 71........C............................................ A...................... (1929) S..... 17 C........ A........... 669 (Cal.........................16 Bal K....... (1949) A. Thakur.. Cal...... 423..................................... OnLine Cal.........T............ (1941) O......................13 Page | 5 ...................................).........r v..... Ali Kedar v........13 Binda v...................... A......C.13 Balaghat v.......... A....... East India Trading Co.... 1...14 Lakshmi v............................ Ramlal........C............. (1964) A.....R................. 36 I........H..............B... Co....... Gulab A...........C..I................ A......... 173.............. (1961) P.................................20 Azgor Ali v.. A......... Abdul.......... 457.... 848.............. 59............. 316....... Said Ahmed.... (1949) N....... 667...........14 Jagdish v....13 Bhagela v.... Hari Om Sharda.. (2010) S.. United Bank.... Pavayee................................... (1995) I.H........ 152....). A.....................N........11 Hirendra Nath Basu v.........14 Badat & Co v.............. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Asha Kapoor v...................... Ko Lu A....... 278....................... A.......... Reazuddin Miah........................................................ OnLine Mad............. (2010) 171 D.. v.............. (1999) A.........C....

.................. (1928) L........B.........................18 Sk Abdul v................................ 63 C...........N............ Mondal 63 C............................................13 Ramchandra Jamnadas Kalariya v.......................... A.... (1923) C......17 Sarifian v.........................13 Naggapa v.............16 Sarwan Singh v....... 20 C.............M........15 Rishab v. Motilal....................... 769....... 253.................................. A.R............14 Tejbai Tejshi v.......... 107............. A... Birendra..........I.. 1192.......... Mandal........................................14 Sarala v... Harper................. Kankar Singh.............................R........ A.. 127.. 578....................16 Union v.............................. Feratioul..... 479.... Gordhandas & Co........... Sadalingappa...... 177................ Abdul Gani Wallab Mohammed Hayath.......17 Narinder v.14 Naga v............. 698.. (1964) P... Nawaz. Gangabai Dinanath Ulvekar................ A......... (1949) N.......................... 22..........C... 62.......13 Mohammed Sab Wallab Gafar Sab v..... London Baptist Mission Corporation. v.... Habibbhai v................14 Union v....N..... Holdsworth..........11 Shantilata Patnaik v.. (1956) Hyd.... 7 C.... (1962) S... A........... 239...................... 180......C......................C.................................... (1953) N. 403. Sukya............................R......... Pyarelal........................... (1974) Bom.... A............... (2002) 1 L........ 119................... 348.......................................... 23...... A... (1964) M.. A...................... (1970) S..............................13 Sambhaji Laxmanrao Pawar v....15 Punit v............D..........J.. 27 (D.........................15 Statutes Page | 6 ..................................... A............................13 Union v... 446.......... Nuruddinbhai............18 Thorp v................... Scriven. 606.............. A...........................................C................................................. Pandurang.....................N............ L............ 1985 Kant... v............... A........ L............... (1919) M....... (2005) Bom....D............................................ 3 C.... 18...............)......P.. Abdul Wahed s/o Rahmatullah.......I.............................. 253...................W..... (1995) 1 Mah.......13 Ross & Co.................. (2001) 1 C............. King...... Md Majid............ 21........... D Arvind Mills......... Union. A.........P...................................................W......... 641...........W......... 630...... 137...........15 Tildesley v.... A..............................17 Mohammandi v.............R............. (1961) M........C.... (1989) S........

................15 Page | 7 .............................................................................. 1..........16 Code of Civil Procedure................................................. p 292...............................................11 Code of Civil Procedure.........)............................................................................. 1908 Order VIII Rule 4..............................13 Supreme Court Practice......................... 1908 Order VI Rule 16.......................................................................12 Books Bullen & Leake........................................ 1908 Order VI Rule 17...................................11 Civil Procedure Code.....Civil Procedure Code.....................16 Rules of Supreme Court........ (1973) Vol........... Pleadings 444-45 (7th ed........... (1965) p 374...................................................... 1908 Order VIII Rule 5.........11 Civil Procedure Code..... 1965 Rule 12………………………………………………………………………………………………9 Other Authorities Annual Practice......... 1908 Order VIII Rule 3................................................

The main allegations which form the foundation of the suit should be dealt with in that way and expressly denied. 743. Asha Kapoor v. (2010) 171 D. The rule says that any allegation of fact must either be denied specifically or by necessary implication or there should be a statement that the fact is not admitted. Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code is known as doctrine of non-traverse which means that where a material averment is passed over without specific denial.L. The effect of Order 8 Rule 3 read along with Rules 4 and 5 of the Code is that. Hari Om Sharda1. was explained by the High Court to be one of seminal importance in this case. the Delhi High Court has explained the underlying rule in civil litigation that averments made by one party unless specifically refuted would be deemed to be accepted. defendant is bound to deal specifically with each allegation of fact not admitted by him. in terms of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. then the allegation should be taken to be admitted. Hari Om Sharda. INTRODUCTION In a recently reported decision. If the plea is not taken in that manner. it is taken to be admitted. This principle which is now firmly embedded in as much as determination of civil suits. he must either deny or state definitely that the substance of each allegation is not admitted. Page | 8 . Facts not specifically dealt with will be taken to be admitted under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code. 1 Asha Kapoor v.T.

is not a sufficient traverse of them. 1965. 1965 The other way of denial of facts made in the plaint is the denial by joinder of issue which is dealt with in Rule 13 of Order 18 of the Supreme Court Rules. any allegation that a party has suffered damage and any allegation as to the amount of damages is deemed to be traversed unless specifically admitted. Rule 13 of the Order 18 of the Supreme Court Rules. Page | 9 . 1965 Rule 12. as the case may be. 1965. 2 Rules of Supreme Court. Supreme Court Rules.  Every allegation of fact made in a statement of claim or counterclaim which the party on whom it is served does not intend to admit must be specifically traversed by him in his defence or defence to counterclaim. there is an implied joinder of issue on that defence. and a general denial of such allegations. 19652 The admissions and denials of the alleged facts of a plaint are dealt with in Rule 12 of Order 18 of the Supreme Court Rules. or a general statement of non-admission of them.  There is at the close of pleadings an implied joinder of issue on the pleading last served. and a party may in his pleading expressly join issue on the next preceding pleading.  It says that that any allegation of fact made by a party in his pleading is deemed to be admitted by the opposite party unless it is traversed by that party in his pleading or a joinder of issue under Rule 14 operates as a denial of it. But contrary to the manner of traversing the facts. 1965 Rule 12 of Order 18 of the Supreme Court Rules.  If there is no reply to a defence.  A traverse may be made either by a denial or by a statement of non-admission and either expressly or by necessary implication.

1908 Page | 10 . any such allegation is excepted from the joinder and is stated to be admitted. implied or express. in which case the express joinder of issue operates as a denial of every other such allegation Code of Civil Procedure. on a statement of claim or counterclaim. in the case of an express joinder of issue.  A joinder of issue operates as a denial of every material allegation of fact made in the pleading on which there is an implied or express joinder of issue unless. There can be no joinder of issue.

. A. Kankar Singh.R. East India Trading Co4. Dharam. if not raised. 316. Page | 11 .3 Rule 3 Order VIII of Civil Procedure Code. East India Trading Co.). 1908 Order VIII Rule 5. 5 Sarwan Singh v. Huzurabad Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. Kankar Singh5but the rule as to non–traverse in written statement ought to be applied judiciously.7 3 Civil Procedure Code. 7 Desi Kedari v. (1964) A. (1980) D. The manner in which the allegations of fact in the plaint should be traversed and the legal consequences flowing from its non-compliance have been laid down in Badat & Co v. 546 (D.3 Denial to be specific---. The defendant must raise by his pleadings all matters which show that the suit is not maintainable or that the transaction is either void or voidable in point of law and all such grounds of defence as. except damages.C. would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise. 4 Badat & Co v. but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth. if he does not admit the truth of the allegations under Order 8 Rule 3 CPC. 6 It is to be noticed that defendant in a suit has to make specific denials of the allegations contained in the plaint.I.B.It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff. under Rule 2 of Order 8. 1908 Order VIII Rule 3. Civil Procedure Code. (1994) 2 A.L. 539.T. 1908 R. 6 Hari v.The manner in which allegations of fact in a plaint should be traversed is dealt with in Rules 3. Civil Procedure Code. or would raise issues of fact not arising out of the plaint.I.R. 4 and 5 of the Order VIII of CPC. A. 1908 Order VIII Rule 4. Sarwan Singh v. 538. (1989) S. 606.

The effect of this Rule along with Rules 4 and 5 is that the defendant is bound to deal specifically with each allegation of fact not admitted by him. Any number of defences may be pleaded together in the same defence. Page | 12 . however.. Facts not specifically dealt with will be taken to be admitted. is not bound to admit an allegation which he seeks thus to avoid or which he alleges to be bad in law. 9 Annual Practice.8 “It is often not enough for a party to deny an allegation in his opponent’s pleading. (1965) p 374. It will not serve his turn merely to traverse the allegation. 1908 Order VIII Rule 5. he must either deny or state definitely that the substance of each allegation is not admitted. It does not of course mean that every allegation in the plaint should be reproduced at length in the written statement for the purpose of denial. he must confess and avoid it. that embarrassing defences may be struck out. The main allegations which form the foundation of the suit should be dealt with in that way and expressly denied. or set up some affirmative case of his own in answer to it. A defendant. (Under Order 6 Rule 16)9 The English rule is that though it would be correct for the plaintiff to use the word “and” when setting up a series of facts. Thus if a plaintiff asserts: 8 Code of Civil Procedure Code. Such fact should be taken up separately as far as possible in the order stated in the plaint and the defendant should either admit them or deny or state definitely that he does not admit. although they are obviously inconsistent subject only to this. he must go further and dispute its validity in law. defendant desiring to deny each of these facts must either break the sentence up into a series of sentences and deal separately with each or use the word “or” instead of “and”.

(1956) Hyd. Ramlal. Page | 13 . 13 Chettier Firm v. 16 Union v. A. 173. A. Further. (1964) P. 12 Lakshmi v.W. 239. 12 A denial of a knowledge of fact is not a denial of the fact. 17 In a money claim defendant should 10 Bullen & Leake. (1995) I. Ko Lu A. 278. (1949) A. 253. Rishab v. Mohammandi v. Pleadings 444-45 (7th ed.N. 394. (1931) A. 17 Naga v. Gulab. A. A. 11 Govindram v. stock-in-trade and other effects which were therein” the correct way of traversing will be: “The defendant never broke or entered the said shop or seized. A.“The defendant broke and entered the said shop or seized. Motilal. Punit v. however.11 Pleading of “not-known” is not tantamount to a pleading of not admitted. 21. 63 C. Sukya.15 An omnibus denial of all notices required to be served under the law is not sufficient. no question can arise as to its legality or validity. 15 Ganga v.). Md Majid. (1949) N. 23. Abid. 14 Balaghat v.C. nor is it even putting the fact in issue. 348. Gulab A. 13 The expression “not admitted” is a specific denial. A. (1949) N. or other effects which were therein”10 This was approved in Govindram v. if notice is denied. is not specific denial of each allegation of fact in that para. Mandal. Prem. stock-in-trade. took and carried away all the furniture. 16 Bare denial of adoption is denial of fact of adoption and its validity. (1934) R. 14 It has. 18. took and carried away any of the furniture. 423. (1953) N. been held only alleging that “para 2 of the plaint is not admitted”. Nawaz. 1.

N. it is sufficient to plead generally.W.C.I. 27 (D. Mondal 63 C. Scriven.18 In a suit for damages. (1959) P.21 A plaintiff suing in ejectment can only succeed on the strength of his own title. Kshetra Mohan Dutta. no other proof is necessary. the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. v. 253. 19 Ross & Co. he must not do so evasively but answer the point of substance. Co.23 Where the plaintiff categorically stated in the plaint that he did not have any alternate accommodation and such statement was not specifically denied by the defendant in his written statement framing of specific issue in that regard is not necessary.C. 59. New India Ins.say what sum has been paid off and if the plea is in full satisfaction. 36 I.r v.).B. it is not necessary to deny specifically the damages claimed. 22. ( 1949) P.19 Statement in an insurance proposal not challenged by the Insurance Co.W. (1995) 1 Mah. in written statement as incorrect cannot be investigated and no amount of evidence is admissible to prove it. it should be distinctly stated. 20 Bal K. If his denial of a fact is not evasive. Said Ahmed.J. Abdul Wahed s/o Rahmatullah. In such an event. 23 Sambhaji Laxmanrao Pawar v. the admission itself being proof. 667.H. L. 1192. 102. 22 Jagdish v. A.C. 20 An omnibus denial of service of all notices that are required to be served can never be accepted as sufficient. 77.24 18 Bhagela v.N. 669 (Cal. 20 C. Abdul. Page | 14 .22 A written statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint and when the defendant denies any such fact. A. 24 Hirendra Nath Basu v. (1999) A.). It is sufficient that plaintiff’s title is denied in the written statement. 21 Union v.

Govind. Thus. 26 Sk Abdul v. 457. it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount. United Bank. Ali Kedar v. 17 C. or else set out how much he received. but answer the point of substance. 29 Azgor Ali v. Page | 15 . (1970) S. A. 1985 Kant. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances. 1908 R. (1961) P. Thakur. 28 Mohammed Sab Wallab Gafar Sab v. (1941) O. 26 Where a written statement is too vague and too general. A. 25 Binda v. Reazuddin Miah. if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money.C. 180.25 Where the truth of the facts alleged in the plaint. (1989) Gauhati 74. 27 The denial must be specific in express terms definite and un-ambiguous. it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances. though not specifically dealt with in the corresponding para of written statement was dealt in additional pleadings. 479. A.Each fact alleged is required to be taken up separately and said that the defendant admits it or denies it or does not admit it. 177. the allegations in the plaint must be considered to be traversed. A denial of the execution of Wakf deed coupled with an allegation that the deed was a nominal.29 Rule 4 Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure. A. 840.4. Union. Abdul Gani Wallab Mohammed Hayath. it is the duty of the Court to call upon the defendant to furnish definite particulars of the plea even though the plaintiff does not seek clarification. taken by undue influence and was never acted upon will not come under the term “specific denial”. but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof. he must not do so evasively. A. 28 An admission in pleading must be taken as a whole. Evasive denial-----Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint. 76. 152. 848. 27 Faquir v.

. 601. In such an 30 Supreme Court Practice.A traverse whether by denial or refusal to admit. (1962) S. (2005) 2 C. Pandurang.C.34 In case of evasive denial or non- specific denial by defendant/ appellant of the plaintiff/respondent’s case there can be constructive admission. The principal underlying this rule is that pleadings should be specific. 1. King. 107.D. did not allege that the tenancy commenced on the 10th of each month. Holdsworth. A. 32 General allegations in the plaint cannot be said to be admitted because of general denial in written statement.N. 630. 33 Where the plaintiff specifically alleged that the tenancy commenced on the first day of each calendar month.P. 31 Thorp v.35Evasive denials are deprecated and the points of defence must be stated specifically and clearly. 35 Dinesh K. Ltd. the fact shall be taken to be admitted.I. A. for a traverse which is evasive or does not answer the point of substance is 30 not a specific traverse of the allegation. Allegation of fact must be admitted clearly or denied boldly. the defendant vaguely denied the same. (1964) M.36 Evasive denials must be construed as admission. Page | 16 . A. (1928) L. 641. must not be evasive but must answer the point of substance.31 It is not at all sufficient to say that the defendant does not admit the allegation in the plaint and puts the plaintiff to the proof of them. Habibbhai v. Pyarelal. 32 Narinder v. A defense that: “The terms of the agreement were never definitely agreed upon as alleged”. Evasive denial is not sufficient. 769.H. A. the plaintiff’s contention that the tenancy commenced on the first day of each month was accepted and Court found accordingly. (1973) Vol. 62.R. Stock Exchange Ascocn. The purport and effect of the denial must be clear and distinct. Cal. (2005) Bom. Nuruddinbhai. 37 If the denial of fact is not specific but evasive. 33 Union v. Singhania v. 3 C. was held evasive. p 292. 34 Ramchandra Jamnadas Kalariya v.

403. Feratioul. Specific Denial----- 1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint. or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant. But under the proviso to r 5 the court may. (1923) C.’ 36 Sarifian v. Thus it is evasive to plead: "defendant never offered a bribe of 500". 71. 40 Code of Civil Procedure.C. 1908 R.38 By "point of substance" is meant the gist and meaning of the allegation traversed. 7 C. 40 Defendant may ask for leave to amend. 1908 Order VI Rule 16.D. 1908 Order VI Rule 17. v. Page | 17 . if not denied specifically or by necessary implication. (1929) S. 38 Badat & Co. require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. A. shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. the admission itself being proof. 41 Code of Civil Procedure. East India Trading Co.41 Rule 5 Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure. in its discretion. the words “or any other sum" should be added. 39 Tildesley v. 5381.5. 37 Chothram v. A. Harper.39 Defective or embarrassing pleading must be struck out. (1964) S. A. 578. Khem.event. as distinct from details which are comparatively immaterial. no other proof is necessary.

119.(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading. 43 Naggapa v. in its discretion. It means minors and persons of unsound mind to which Order 32 applies. D Arvind Mills. it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint. or has. if at the framing of the issues or at the trial the person representing the minor defendants admits certain allegations of facts it cannot be said that r5 affects such admission. the court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have. engaged a pleader. v. (3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2). (1919) M. but the court may.43  Proviso. L. Gordhandas & Co.42  “Except as against a person under disability”.The words refer only to a denial and not a non-admission.The term “Person under Disability” has not been defined in our Code. (4) Whenever a judgment Is pronounced under this rule. The rule has nothing to do with the conduct of the suit afterwards. 698. For instance. Sadalingappa. except as against a person under a disability. Meaning of terms  Necessary Implication. require any such fact to be proved. (1974) Bom. A. a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.In the case of admission by implication the rigor of the rule has been modified by the proviso under which the Court may require any fact so admitted to 42 M. They are intended to cover a case in which the particular version set out in a written statement cannot probably co-exist with the positive case made out by the plaintiff in a plaint.R. Page | 18 .

Rule 8. Rule 13 for setting aside the decree passed under Order 8.R. (1961) M. Rule 5/10 is not barred. 46 Shantilata Patnaik v.46 44 Sarala v. Gangabai Dinanath Ulvekar.45  Remedy. (2002) 1 L.Application under Order 9.Against a decree passed under Order 8. 127.P. The Court has discretion to require any fact so admitted by implication to be proved otherwise by such admission. London Baptist Mission Corporation.C. 446.C. Rule 13 CPC.44  Appeal. 137. Page | 19 . A. Birendra. remedy is by way of appeal and not restoration application under Order 9. 45 Tejbai Tejshi v. be proved by other evidence. (2001) 1 C.

Case 2: Dinesh Kumar Singhania v. 47 Asha Kapoor v. It was held that. West. (2003) S. The order was challenged in the instant appeal.L. OnLine Cal. Calcutta Stock Exchange48 Facts: The plaintiff/ respondent sued the defendant/ appellant for a decree for a certain sum along with interest.C. Hari Om Sharda47 The Delhi High Court has explained the underlying rule in civil litigation that averments made by one party unless specifically refuted would be deemed to be accepted.T. IIIrd Floor. Calcutta Stock Exchange. 55. (2010) 171 D. "as per written statement of petitioner it is apparent that. The trial judge was of the view that there was such an admission and he recorded an order directing the defendant to furnish securities for the sum within three weeks failing which decree would be drawn up for a sum with interest at interim stage and also interest at final judgement.C. The suit was expedited. 16. Gorakh Park Ext. C-91. 48Dinesh Kumar Singhania v. Page | 20 . Case Analysis Case 1: Asha Kapoor v. 743. the plaintiff filed an application for a decree on admission on the basis of some averments in the pleading of the defendant. The trial court held that there was no clear admission by the defendant. Before the trial judge. The law on judgement on admission was discussed and appeal was allowed. Delhi. Shahadra. she has nowhere specifically denied that she has not acquired vacant and physical possession of premises no. Hari Om Sharda. The claim was contested by the defendant/ appellant by filing a written statement.

OnLine Mad. Page | 21 . the pleadings do not show either any express or constructive admission. Case 2: Athiyappan v. 49 Athiyappan v.C. (2010) S. Thus as per Order 8 Rule 3 and 5 which state that the denial must be specific. 4 and 5 of Order 8 were not applied as the allegations of the plaintiff were specifically dealt with by an affidavit filed by the defendant. 4 and 5. Pavayee49 In this case the defendants failed to deny the Plaintiff’s readiness and willingness and financial capacity.C.Held: In the instant case. Pavayee. But Rules 3. the Court said that in case of evasive denial or non- specific denial by defendant/ appellant of the plaintiff/ respondent’s case. Cases of constructive admission are those where admission is to be inferred or implied from the pleadings in view of the form of pleadings adopted by the parties. there can be constructive admission. 2225. Referring to Order 8. a decree for specific performance against the defendants was rightly granted. Rule 3.

CONCLUSION The effect of Order 8 Rule 3 read along with Rules 4 and 5 of the Code is that. defendant is bound to deal specifically with each allegation of fact not admitted by him. If the plea is not taken in that manner. Page | 22 . then the allegation should be taken to be admitted. he must either deny or state definitely that the substance of each allegation is not admitted. The rule says that any allegation of fact must either be denied specifically or by necessary implication or there should be a statement that the fact is not admitted. Facts not specifically dealt with will be taken to be admitted under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code. Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code is known as doctrine of non-traverse which means that where a material averment is passed over without specific denial. it is taken to be admitted. The main allegations which form the foundation of the suit should be dealt with in that way and expressly denied.

com/library/bareacts/codeofcivilprocedure/index.courts.php BOOKS 1. 4th ed. Delhi Law House. http://www. 1908: Section 113-to order XXI-Rule 73. Code of Civil Procedure. Case and material on Code of Civil Procedure with State Amendment. http://www. Code of Civil Procedure.blogspot.html 3. 2.html 2. Eastern Book Company. BIBLIOGRAPHY WEB LINKS 1. 3. Page | 23 .advocatekhoj. Wadhwa & Company 2004.ie/rules.blogspot.in/2010/09/if-not-denied-accepted-high-court. http://legalperspectives.in/2015/06/please-first-read-disclaimerat-bottom.blogspot. http://himanshuaroras.nsf/0/2addb4da2a13497f80256d2b0046b3aa?OpenDocument 4. 2006. 2006.html 5. http://denyingallegations.in/2013/02/written-statement-order-viii-of-cpc-of.