According to P. C.

Mogha, pleading are statements in writing draw up and filed by each party to a case stating what his
contention will be at trial and giving all such details as his opponents needs to know for his defence.

The pleading is the plaint filed by the plaintiff and the written statement filed by the defendant and thus the stage of
pleading would mean the institution of plaint till the submission of a written statement.

Therefore, pleading is a statement of parties to communicate their contention to be adjudicated in trial.

The object of pleading was explained in the case of Moonsamy v Ramanjulu (1971 MR 90). Pleading has following objects:

a) To give each side, intimation of the case of the other so that they are not taken by surprise.

b) To enable the court to determine the issues between the parties.

c) To diminish expenses and delay in conduct of suits.

It is important to distinguish pleadings in civil cases and criminal cases because the two types of cases involve fundamentally
different legal concepts and standards of proof. Civil court proceedings commonly arise from a dispute among private parties
where compensation or redress is required for an affected party's grievance. Criminal offenses contrastingly involve harm
against society where accountability must be held even if it necessitates punishment for wrongdoing committed by culprits.
For instance, in the case of State v. Perle (1960), the Supreme Court of Mauritius held that the provisions relating to
pleadings in civil cases could not be applied to criminal cases.

There are different types of pleadings in civil cases:

Plaint

A plaint is a statement of claim that is filed by the plaintiff at the beginning of the case. It sets out the plaintiff's case,
including the facts and legal basis for the claim. According to Ragoo v. Ramphul (1977 MR 189), the court held that the
complaint must be clear and concise, stating the essential facts on which the plaintiff relies. The court also ruled that the
complaint must contain a clear and distinct statement of the legal protection sought.

Written statement of defense

A written statement of defense is a pleading that is filed by the defendant in response to the plaintiff's plaint. It sets out the
defendant's case, including any facts and legal arguments that are relevant to the dispute. It explains defendant's arguments,
including all facts and legal arguments relevant to the dispute. In Vijaya Siva Moothoosamy v. The Mauritius Sugar Syndicate
Ltd (2017 SCJ 82), the court emphasized that the written defense must be specific and address the material factual and legal
issues raised by the plaintiff.

Reply

A reply is a pleading that is filed by the plaintiff in response to the defendant's written statement of defense. It is used to
address any new issues or arguments that the defendant has raised in their defense. For Betra v. According to Yee (2000 MR
62), courts must limit their responses to new issues raised by the defense, and do not use them to repeat or restate issues
already raised in the complaint.

Rejoinder

A rejoinder is a pleading that is filed by the defendant in response to the plaintiff's reply. In the case of Ramnarain v
Ramnarain [1992 MR 242], it was asserted that a rejoinder is confined solely to addressing novel matters that have been
introduced in the reply and cannot be leveraged to reiterate or re-establish arguments that were previously addressed in the
defense.

Further and better particulars

Further and better particulars are pleadings that can be filed by either party if they require additional information or
clarification on a particular issue. The case involving Essack & Co. T v Central Electricity Board [1965 MR 184] is an example of
the use of further and better particulars in a civil case in Mauritius.

Defense to counterclaim
A defense to counterclaim is a pleading that is filed by the defendant in response to a counterclaim made by the plaintiff. The
case of Chinien v Lesage (2011 SCJ 280) reinforces the importance of complying with the rules on pleadings, particularly in
relation to counterclaims, in order to ensure that the parties have a fair and just trial.

Defense to set-off

A defense to set-off is a pleading that is filed by the defendant in response to a set-off made by the plaintiff. In the case of
Sukhoo v. Boojhawon (2016 SCJ 291), the court held that a defense to set-off must be specific and must address the material
facts.

The Principles of Pleading and Practice in Civil Actions in the High Court of Justice by W. Blake Odgers sets out the following
principles:

1. Pleadings should state facts and not law; highlighted in the case- Elahee Buksh v. The Colonial Sugar Refining
Company Limited (1932 MR 171)

2. Pleadings should contain only material facts; highlighted in the following cases:
Ramphul v. Ong Cheng Neo (1950 MR 147
Aumeeruddy v. Mauree (1963 MR 132)
Dookhee v. Amod (1977 MR 265)

3. Pleadings should be clear and concise; highlighted in the following cases:

Aumeeruddy v. Mauree (1963 MR 132
L'Union Saint-Joseph de l'Ile Maurice v. Rajcoomar (1973 MR 219)
Reunion Commerciale v. Gujadhur (1998 SCJ 193)

4. Pleadings should be certain and not vague; highlighted in the case: R v. Roach (2001) UKHL 68

5. Pleadings should not contain scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters; highlighted in the case: Faugoo v Central
Electricity Board [1991 MR 24]

6. Pleadings should not contain argument or evidence; highlighted in the case: Richco International v. Barclays Bank
plc [2009] EWCA Civ 406, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales

7. Pleadings should be consistent with each other; highlighted in the case: AIG Europe v. Faraday Capital Ltd [2006]
EWHC 242 (Comm)

8. Pleadings should not be argumentative; highlighted in the case: Elsey Enterprises Ltd v. J.G. Collins Insurance
Agencies Ltd [1978] 2 SCR 916

9. Pleadings should not contain irrelevant matter; highlighted in the case: J. W. Cameron & Co. Ltd. v. Inland Revenue
Commissioners [1943] KB 190

10. Pleadings should not be embarrassing; highlighted in the case: Kuttan Pillai v. Achuthan Pillai [1961] 1 MLJ 149

11. Pleadings should not be oppressive; highlighted in the case: Sikaiana Enterprises Ltd v. Western Province Provincial
Government [2003] SBHC 68, the High Court of the Solomon Islands

12. Pleadings should not be ambiguous or uncertain; highlighted in the case: Okafor v. Manna [2003] EWCA Civ 1112,
the Court of Appeal in England and Wales

13. Pleadings should not be contradictory; highlighted in the case: Home Office v. Harman [1983] 1 AC 280, the House
of Lords in England

14. Pleadings should not be misleading - the general principle is that pleadings should be clear, concise, and truthful,
and should not contain any misrepresentations or omissions that would mislead the court or the other party.

15. Pleadings should not be scandalous or defamatory; highlighted in the following cases:
Mardemootoo v Mardemootoo (1991 MR 265)
Fok Kin Lien v Chen Ting Chung (1974 MR 159)
 16. Pleadings should not be in breach of any duty of confidence- it is generally recognised in legal systems around the
world that pleadings should not contain confidential or privileged information without the appropriate
authorization or protection.

Pleadings are the foundation of any civil action and are critical in ensuring that the parties' respective positions are clearly set
out and understood by the court. The Civil Procedure Rules in Mauritius require that pleadings be clear, concise, and only
contain material facts necessary to support the case. In this section, we will discuss the importance of pleadings in civil cases
in Mauritius, using relevant case laws:

Pleadings define the scope of the case

In the case of Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources v. Kodabaccus (1978 MR 184), the court ruled that the parties
must abide by their pleadings and that the purpose of pleadings is to define the parameters of the case. The court further
ruled that the parties could not raise new arguments or present evidence that was not covered by the pleadings and that the
case could not be expanded beyond the pleadings. Because they act as a road map for the court and the parties to
understand what issues are in dispute, pleadings in civil cases are crucial, as demonstrated by this case.

Pleadings ensure fairness and due process

In the case of Yut Wai Trading Co. Ltd v. Mootoosamy (2005 SCJ 173), the goal of pleadings, the court emphasized, is to make
sure that each party has sufficient knowledge of the other party's case and that natural justice principles are upheld. The
defendant cannot be caught off guard by the plaintiff's claim, the court ruled, and the defendant has a right to be aware of
the specifics of the plaintiff's claim in order to properly prepare a defense. The significance of pleadings in ensuring fairness
and due process in civil cases is highlighted by this case.

Pleadings facilitate the efficient resolution of disputes

In the case of Jeeva v. The State of Mauritius (2012 SCJ 27), the court emphasized the importance of pleadings in the efficient
resolution of disputes. According to the court, pleadings assist in identifying the issues in dispute, which helps to narrow the
scope of the trial and reduces the time and cost of litigation. This case emphasizes the importance of pleadings in resolving
civil cases in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

In this section, we will discuss the purpose of pleadings in civil cases in Mauritius, using relevant case laws.

Pleadings define the issues in dispute

In the case of Ropert v. Rochecouste (1984 MR 95), the purpose of pleadings, according to the court, is to define the issues in
dispute between the parties. The court stated that pleadings serve as a roadmap for the court and the parties to understand
what issues are at issue, and that parties are bound by their pleadings. This case demonstrates the significance of pleadings
in defining the issues in dispute and ensuring that the parties remain within the scope of the case.

Pleadings provide notice of the other party's case

In the case of Air Mauritius Ltd v. Ramjuttun (2007 SCJ 279), the court's mandate is to ensure that each party receives
adequate notice of the other party's case. The plaintiff cannot include new claims or issues in the pleadings unless the
defendant is given notice and an opportunity to respond, according to the court. This case highlights the importance of
pleadings in ensuring that each party has adequate notice of the other party's case and that natural justice rules are
followed.

Pleadings facilitate the efficient resolution of disputes

In the case of Jayarama Shetty v. A. Raghavendra Rao (AIR 1968 SC 1015), the purpose of the court, according to the court, is
to facilitate the efficient resolution of disputes. According to the court, pleadings aid in identifying the issues in dispute,
thereby narrowing the scope of the trial and reducing the time and cost of litigation. This case emphasizes the importance of
pleadings in resolving civil cases efficiently and cost-effectively.
Conclusion

By providing a concise and clear statement of the claims and defenses at issue, pleadings are essential in Mauritius civil
litigation. Although the various pleading forms have different functions, they are all necessary for the quick and efficient
resolution of disputes by the court system. The Civil Procedure Code of Mauritius' principles and requirements must be
followed, so it is crucial for parties to make sure their pleadings are well-written.

Bibliography

Sources

• The Principles of Pleading and Practice in Civil Actions in the High Court of Justice by W. Blake Odgers
• P.C Mogha's Law of Pleadings

Cases:

• Moonsamy v Ramanjulu (1971 MR 90)

• State v. Perle (1960)
• Ragoo v. Ramphul (1977 MR 189)
• Vijaya Siva Moothoosamy v. The Mauritius Sugar Syndicate Ltd (2017 SCJ 82)
• For Betra v. According to Yee (2000 MR 62)
• Ramnarain v Ramnarain [1992 MR 242]
• Essack & Co. T v Central Electricity Board [1965 MR 184]
• Chinien v Lesage (2011 SCJ 280)
• Sukhoo v. Boojhawon (2016 SCJ 291)
• Elahee Buksh v. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited (1932 MR 171)
• Ramphul v. Ong Cheng Neo (1950 MR 147
• Aumeeruddy v. Mauree (1963 MR 132)
• Dookhee v. Amod (1977 MR 265)
• Aumeeruddy v. Mauree (1963 MR 132
• L'Union Saint-Joseph de l'Ile Maurice v. Rajcoomar (1973 MR 219)
• Reunion Commerciale v. Gujadhur (1998 SCJ 193)
• R v. Roach (2001) UKHL 68
• Faugoo v Central Electricity Board [1991 MR 24]
• Richco International v. Barclays Bank plc [2009] EWCA Civ 406, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales
• AIG Europe v. Faraday Capital Ltd [2006] EWHC 242 (Comm)
• Elsey Enterprises Ltd v. J.G. Collins Insurance Agencies Ltd [1978] 2 SCR 916
• J. W. Cameron & Co. Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1943] KB 190
• Kuttan Pillai v. Achuthan Pillai [1961] 1 MLJ 149
• Sikaiana Enterprises Ltd v. Western Province Provincial Government [2003] SBHC 68, the High Court of the Solomon Islands
• Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources v. Kodabaccus (1978 MR 184)
• Yut Wai Trading Co. Ltd v. Mootoosamy (2005 SCJ 173)
• Jeeva v. The State of Mauritius (2012 SCJ 27)
• Ropert v. Rochecouste (1984 MR 95)
• Air Mauritius Ltd v. Ramjuttun (2007 SCJ 279)
• Jayarama Shetty v. A. Raghavendra Rao (AIR 1968 SC 1015)