INTRODUCTION (WRITTEN STATEMENT- RULE 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5)

meaning - written statement is a pleading of a def where he may deny/admint the allegations of plantiiff in the
plaint

"W/s is a term of specific connotation signifying a reply to the plaint filed by def." - case law (Rachappa v.
Gurudidappa 1980 sc)

W/S does not have a statutory def.

order 6 says what is plaint (plaintiffs pleadings)and W/S is def.s pleading

Order 8

Rule 1 basically denotes the time period in which the WS has to be filed

Rule 1- def must present W/S for defence

within 30 days from the date of service of summons

exception (outer limit) - can be extented to 90 days (due to exceptional situation)

Case law - Kailash v. nanku (is outer limit a mandatory provision or not, which was declared as not mandatory
but directoryon the courts discretion)

Rule 1A - amendm. act 1999

Documents upon which the relief is claimed or relied on by def. must be entered in a list and presented + WS in
court

Except - doc given in cross or to refreshing memory (mention section)

Rule 2 - New facts except for the WS will be specially pleased

types of new facts

- Suit is not maintainable

- transaction (void or vooidable)

- those grounds which would surprise the opp. pary

- issue of fact not arising from the plaint

(Fraud, limitation, release, payment, facts showing illegality)

MUST BE RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT

Denial by Defendant covered in Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 5

Rule 3 - Denial must be specific

each allegation must specifically dealt with he does not agrees ro (denial)

eg- A accuses B of taking 1000 from A

B says - "i dont think so" (which wont be considered as specific denial, it will be considered as admitting to the
alleg.)

Denial must be spefic

"No i did not take the money, you are trying to accuse me of it" (SPECIFIC)

Rule 4 - strong and clear statement of denial instead of vague statement

Denial should not be EVASIVE - Clear & explicit

Rule 5 - if no clear denial then it shall be considered as admitting to the allegation

Allegation of plaint if not denied shall be taken as admitted

Case law for Rule 3, 4,5 - Badat Co. v. India Trading Co.

(SET-OFF- RULE 6 (defendants favour)

Eg-

Rahul & Rohan

Rahul tells his teacher that rohan took 10 rupees yest and hasnt returned it

rohan says he did take 10 rs but did he mention he took 5 rupees from me last week

teacher says- if you had to give him 5 rs and youre asking for 10 rs thats not right. You can ask for 5 rupees bec
you had to give him 5 rs back

Teacher - Court

Rahul - Plaintiff

Rohan - Def

Money related matter, recovery suit

The 5 rs that has to be given to rahul by rohan will be called as Set-off which is known as settling

Set off is help the court to not elongate the court proceedings

Statutory defence to plaintiffs action - it is a defence for the defendant againts plaintiffs action

it is also a reciprocal accural of debts

usually in revovery of money

Doctrine - Defendant to put his claim against plaintiff before the court

The def. can claim to SET OFF against the plaintiffs demand- any ascertained sum of money (legally
recoverably) from plaintiff

Essentials/Conditions for a claim to SET OFF

- Recovery of money

- Ascertained sum of money

- legally recoverably

- recoverable from the plaintiff

- recoverable by defendant

- must not exceed the pecuniary limits of court

add illustration - image saved

2 types of SET OFF

Legal Equitable

Ascertained sum of money Set off by way of damages

Claimed as a legal right cannot be claimed as a legal right

court is bboud to entertain (natural justice)

Counter claim (Rule 6A to 6G) added with 1976 amendm.

def-

"claim made by def. against plaintiff in a suit" (cross claim)

A claims from B that he has his prop in illegal posession and files a suit

B counter claims in his WS that he is the owner of the prop. and not in illegal posession

Rule 6A- a def. may set off by way of Counter claim against the plaintiffs claim- any right or claim in respect of
Cause of Action accruing to the def. against the plaintiff

efore or after filing of the suit before def. has delivered defense or time expired (30 days)

Immaterial - Counter claim is in the nature of claim for damages or not but has to be bbefore delivered defense
or time expiry

Cannot exceed pecuiniary juris. of the court

CC is is treated as a plaint and it is called a cross suit

Leading case - Laxshmidas v. Nanabhai 1964 SC

Rule 6B- Defendant-specifically state groud supporting a right of CC in WS

Rule 6C- Plaintiff may raise an argument - claim should not be disposed off by CC by Independant suit, court
may order in that effect

Rule 6D- if plaintiffs suit is dismissed- court may proceed with defendant's CC

Rule 6E- plaintif''s default in reply to Defendants CC, court may pronounce judgement against the plaintiff
Rule 6F- Court may ask to pay balance when the CC is established against plaintiff's claim

Rule 6G - Rules relating to WS shall to CC (treated as a plaint)

Rule 7 - defence or set off founded on separate grounds shall be stated/treated separately and distinctly

Rule 8 - New grounds of defence shall be mentioned in WS

Rule 9- Subsequent pleadings

Rule 10 - Juddgement against defendant, when party fails to present WS called for (Rule 1 or 9)

Diff. between Set off and CC

Set off counter claim

Order 8, Rule 6 Order 8, Rule 6A to 6GG

Defence (sheild) Attack (sword)

Same transaction need nto arise from the same trans.

claimed in money suits not always limited to money suit

cannot exceed plaintiffs claim can exceed plaintiff's claim

ITC Limited v. JP Morgan Mutual Fund India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors,

In the case of an application filed by defendant no.2, JP Morgan Asset Management India Private Limited,
seeking permission to produce nine additional documents, the court granted the request. The application was
made under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court considered the documents
necessary for deciding the suit and allowed their production, emphasizing that the defendant had to obtain leave
for the submission. The court also highlighted the relevance of the documents in understanding the events
surrounding the case, including credit ratings, share price movements, and the management of the funds in
question. The court emphasized that allowing the additional documents would not give the defendant an unfair
advantage, as the plaintiff would have the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant's witness on the
documents. The decision was made with the aim of ensuring a complete and fair adjudication of the case.

(Explained like im 5)

In this situation, two groups of people were arguing in a special court about some money that was lost in a kind
of investment deal. One of the groups said they wanted to show some papers to prove they were right, but the
other group said it was too late for that. The first group said there were good reasons they didn't show the papers
before, and they wanted the judge to agree to let them show the papers now. The judge looked at the rules for
how things should be done in the court and found that the first group was allowed to show the papers if the
judge said it was okay. The second group didn't want the first group to show the papers because they thought it
would take too long and they wanted the problem to be fixed quickly. The judge said the first group could show
the papers, but they had to do it in a certain time and the second group could ask questions about the papers. The
judge wanted to make sure everything was fair and both groups had a chance to talk about the papers.
Smt. Anita Gupta vs Sh. Suresh Dudani & Anr on 18 February, 2019

The case involves a dispute over a property in New Delhi. The plaintiff claims ownership and seeks an
injunction against the defendants from parting with possession of the property. The defendants, particularly
defendant No. 2, have raised various allegations regarding the source of funds used to purchase the property and
have challenged the legality of a gift deed executed by defendant No. 1.

The court has examined the claims and counterclaims of the parties. It has found that the defendant's contentions
lack concrete evidence and are vague and unsubstantiated. The court has referenced the Prohibition of Benami
Property Transaction Act, 1988, and has concluded that the defendant's arguments do not hold ground under this
act. Therefore, the court has allowed the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and passed a decree in favor of
the plaintiff, ordering possession of the suit property. Defendant No. 2 has been given nine months to vacate the
property, provided an affidavit of undertaking to do so is filed within two weeks. The plaintiff has agreed not to
press for mesne profits if the property is vacated in accordance with the decree.

(explained like im 5)

! In this story, one person said another person was living in a house that they owned and they wanted them to
leave. The first person showed papers that said they owned the house, but the second person said they gave
money to the first person to buy the house. The second person also said the first person didn't take care of their
money and used it to buy the house. The court looked at the rules about buying houses for others and found that
the second person's claims were not clear and didn't have proof like bank papers. The court said it was against
the law for the second person to ask for the house because they gave money to buy it. The court said the first
person could keep the house and told the second person to leave the house within nine months. The court said
the first person wouldn't ask for extra money if the second person left the house in nine months. The case
finished, and other requests were also sorted out.

SHIVARAM SHETTY v. SMT. SAVITHA SHETTY

The petitioner, who is the 1st defendant in O.S. No.33/2014, has filed a writ petition challenging the order dated
7.1.2016, which rejected his application for amending the Written Statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the
CPC, 1908. The court has declined to grant the amendment, agreeing with the reasoning of the lower court. The
lower court's decision was based on the understanding that the proposed amendment dealt with legal matters,
specifically the definitions of family under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The court held that parties are not
permitted to plead about the law, and therefore, the proposed amendment was not permissible. The court also
noted that the petitioner could still contest the claim of the other parties based on the facts of the case, without
the need for the proposed amendment. The court disposed of the writ petition with these observations.

Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co.,

In the case of Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co., the Supreme Court deliberated on the enforceability of
foreign awards. The court was divided on the matter, with Subba Rao J. providing a minority judgment. Subba
Rao J. emphasized the importance of recognizing foreign judgments and awards to facilitate global business
transactions. The court upheld the enforceability of foreign awards, stressing that the requirement of finality
must be met for enforcement. The judgment further highlighted the similarity between an enforcement order and
a judgment on an award, stating that both serve the same purpose.

However, the majority, consisting of MC Mudholkar and Raghubar Dayal JJ., based their decision on technical
grounds. They argued that the cause of action for the suit, which originated in New York, did not fall within the
jurisdiction of the Indian court. They also contended that, according to New York law, an award does not
become final until a judgment is obtained based on that award.

Despite the dissenting view, the Supreme Court ultimately recognized the enforceability of non-conventional
awards in India under the common law, citing principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. The
submission suggests that Subba Rao J.'s dissenting opinion, which supported the High Court's decision,
accurately reflects the law on the matter.
Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/balraj-taneja-anr-vs-sunil-madan-anr-court-can-decree-for-
specific-performance-under-order-8-rule-10-of-cpc-if-written-statement-is-not-filed-within-reasonable-time-
5297.asp

Jayanti Lal v. Abdul Aziz,

https://lawyerservices.in/Jyanti-Lal-Versus-Abdul-Aziz-1955-11-28

In this case, the defendants sought relief against an order that required them to pay court fees on a certain sum
they claimed had been adjusted and satisfied towards the rent of a disputed house. The defendants' defense was
based on an agreement with the plaintiffs where they made certain improvements to the property and advanced
money, with the understanding that these amounts would be adjusted against the rent owed. The court had
initially ruled that the defendants must pay the court fee, as the claim appeared to be in the nature of a set-off.

The defendants argued that their claim was in the nature of a defense or plea of payment, rather than a set-off,
and thus no court fee was leviable on the sum claimed. The court examined the legal distinction between set-off,
counter-claims, and defenses. It emphasized that the plea of set-off is distinct from a plea of payment, with set-
off being the satisfaction or extinguishment of a debt after the plea is raised. The court further clarified that the
claim made by the defendants was not a legal or equitable set-off and that no separate suit could be maintained
based on this claim.

The court concluded that the defendants' claim was essentially a defense and not a set-off, and therefore, no
court fee was payable on the claimed amount. It emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the defendants to
establish their plea of satisfaction by adjustment during the trial. Consequently, the court allowed the
defendants' application, setting aside the earlier order of the learned Munsif. No costs were awarded in the case.

Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India