Written Statement Must Have Para-Wise Reply To Plaint; Allegations Deemed To Be Admitted Unless Specifically Denied : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) observed that the failure of the defendant to give para wise reply against the claim made by the plaintiff would make the allegations made in the plaint as admitted against the defendant.

“Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC clearly provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient. Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC provides that even the admitted facts may not be treated to be admitted, still in its discretion the Court may require those facts to be proved. This is an exception to the general rule. General rule is that the facts admitted, are not required to be proved.”, the Bench Comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal said.

After finding that there is no specific admission or denial by the appellant/defendant with reference to the allegation in different paras of the plaint, the Judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that in the absence of a para-wise reply to the plaint, it becomes a roving inquiry for the Court to find out as to which line in some paragraph in the plaint is either admitted or denied in the written statement filed. 

Background

The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction before the Trial Court against the appellant/defendant. The plaintiff contended that the suit property was being bequeathed to her through a registered 'Will', therefore the defendant has no right to claim title over the property.

However, the defendant claimed that the testator of 'Will' was not in a good health condition to understand and comprehend the contents of the Will, therefore the claim of the plaintiff over the suit property couldn't survive.

Further, a written statement filed by the appellants/defendant, made no specific denial to the claim made by the respondent/plaintiff and neither parawise reply was given by the appellants/defendant to the allegations levied in the plaint.

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, however, the first appellate court decided in favor of the appellant/defendant.

On the second appeal preferred by the appellant i.e., the High Court affirmed the Trial Court's finding.

It is against the High Court's decision that the appellant/defendant preferred the civil appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Observation

At the outset, after perusing the evidence placed on record in the form of witnesses' testimonies, the court noted that there was no inconsistency in the statement made by the Will-attesting witnesses and the scribe of Will, therefore, it can't be said that the Testator was not in a position to make a 'Will'.

Apart from the aforesaid observation, the Supreme Court discussed the importance of a specific para-wise reply to the allegations of the plaint by the defendant in a written statement because the appellant/defendant made no specific admission or denial with reference to the allegation in different paras of the plaint.

“A perusal of the plaint filed by the respondent shows that it contains ten paragraphs besides the prayer. In the written statement filed by the appellants, no specific para-wise reply was given. It was the own story of the respondent containing fifteen paragraphs besides the prayer in para 16.”, the court noted.

Allegation Made In The Plaint Shall Be Deemed To Be Admitted If Not Denied Specifically

The court records that Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint, therefore the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth.

“Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC clearly provides for specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient. Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC provides that even the admitted facts may not be treated to be admitted, still in its discretion the Court may require those facts to be proved. This is an exception to the general rule. General rule is that the facts admitted, are not required to be proved.”, the court said.

Further, the Supreme Court endorsed its earlier judgment of Badat and Co. Bombay Vs. East India Trading Co. where the court while referring to Order VIII Rules 3 to 5 of the CPC opined that the aforesaid Rules formed an integrated Code dealing with the manner in which the pleadings are to be dealt with.

“These three rules form an integrated code dealing with the manner in which allegations of fact in the plaint should be traversed and the legal consequences flowing from its noncompliance. The written statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint and when a defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. If his denial of a fact is not specific but evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary”, the Supreme Court observed in Badat and Co. Bombay.

Moreover, the Supreme Court also referred to its judgment of Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam Vs. Atmaram Kumar where the Supreme Court stated as follows:

“What is stated in the above is, what amount to admit a fact on pleading while Rule 3 of Order 8 requires that the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth. Rule 5 provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied in the written statement shall be taken to be admitted by the defendant. What this rule says is, that any allegation of fact must either be denied specifically or by a necessary implication or there should be at least a statement that the fact is not admitted. If the plea is not taken in that manner, then the allegation shall be taken to be admitted.”

The Supreme Court clarified that the aforesaid observations is made to streamline the working of the Supreme Court while dealing with such scenarios, where there are no specific para-wise reply given in the written statement/counter affidavit filed by the defendant(s)/respondent(s), as regularly this Court is faced with such situation.

In view of the aforesaid observations, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision, and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T.Archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Pulkit Tare, Adv. Mr. D. Kumanan, Adv. Mr. Sandeepan Pathak, Adv. Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, AOR

Case Title: THANGAM AND ANOTHER VERSUS NAVAMANI AMMAL, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8935 OF 2011

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment