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 Procedures Teacher, Dr. Radheshyam Prasad

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

this project wouldnt 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
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................................................2

TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................6

Supreme Court Rules, 1965.......................................................................................................8

Rule 12 of Order 18 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1965........................................................8

Rule 13 of the Order 18 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1965..................................................8

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.................................................................................................10

Rule 3 Order VIII of Civil Procedure Code, 1908...............................................................10

Rule 4 Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure, 1908...............................................................14

Rule 5 Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure, 1908...............................................................15

Meaning of terms..................................................................................................................16

Case Analysis...........................................................................................................................17

Case 1: Asha Kapoor v. Hari Om Sharda.............................................................................18

Case 2: Dinesh Kumar Singhania v. Calcutta Stock Exchange............................................18

Case 2: Athiyappan v. Pavayee.............................................................................................19

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................20

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................21

Page | 3
Page | 4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Asha Kapoor v. Hari Om Sharda, (2010) 171 D.L.T. 743.......................................................19

Athiyappan v. Pavayee, (2010) S.C.C. OnLine Mad. 2225......................................................20

Azgor Ali v. Reazuddin Miah, A. (1989) Gauhati 74, 76..........................................................14

Badat & Co v. East India Trading Co, (1964) A.I.R. 538........................................................11

Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co. A. (1964) S.C. 5381...................................................16

Bal K.r v. New India Ins. Co, A. (1959) P. 102........................................................................13

Balaghat v. Abid, (1995) I.C. 1................................................................................................13

Bhagela v. Abdul, 36 I.C. 77....................................................................................................13

Binda v. United Bank, A. (1961) P. 152....................................................................................14

Chettier Firm v. Ko Lu A. (1934) R. 278.................................................................................13

Chothram v. Khem, A. (1929) S. 71.........................................................................................16

Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., (1994) 2 A.L.T. 539, 546

(D.B.)....................................................................................................................................11

Dinesh K. Singhania v. Cal. Stock Exchange Ascocn. Ltd., (2005) 2 C.H.N. 601...................16

Dinesh Kumar Singhania v. Calcutta Stock Exchange, (2003) S.C.C. OnLine Cal. 55..........19

Faquir v. Thakur, A. (1941) O. 457; Ali Kedar v. Govind, 17 C. 840, 848..............................14

Ganga v. Prem, A. (1949) A. 173.............................................................................................13

Govindram v. Gulab A. (1949) N. 394.....................................................................................13

Hari v. Dharam, A. (1980) D. 316...........................................................................................11

Hirendra Nath Basu v. Kshetra Mohan Dutta, (1999) A.I.H.C. 667, 669 (Cal.).....................14

Jagdish v. Said Ahmed, A. ( 1949) P.C. 59...............................................................................14

Lakshmi v. Ramlal, A. (1931) A. 423.......................................................................................13

Page | 5
M. Gordhandas & Co. v. D Arvind Mills, (1974) Bom. L.R. 119............................................17

Mohammandi v. Nawaz, A. (1956) Hyd. 18.............................................................................13

Mohammed Sab Wallab Gafar Sab v. Abdul Gani Wallab Mohammed Hayath, A. 1985 Kant.

177, 180................................................................................................................................14

Naga v. Sukya, A. (1953) N. 239..............................................................................................13

Naggapa v. Sadalingappa, A. (1919) M. 698...........................................................................17

Narinder v. King, A. (1928) L. 769..........................................................................................15

Punit v. Md Majid, A. (1964) P. 348.........................................................................................13

Ramchandra Jamnadas Kalariya v. Nuruddinbhai, A.I.R. (2005) Bom. 107..........................15

Rishab v. Motilal, A. (1949) N. 21, 23.....................................................................................13

Ross & Co. v. Scriven, 20 C.W.N. 1192...................................................................................13

Sambhaji Laxmanrao Pawar v. Abdul Wahed s/o Rahmatullah, (1995) 1 Mah. L.J. 22, 27

(D.B.)....................................................................................................................................14

Sarala v. Birendra, A. (1961) M.P. 127....................................................................................17

Sarifian v. Feratioul, A. (1923) C. 578....................................................................................16

Sarwan Singh v. Kankar Singh, A.I.R. (1989) S.C. 606...........................................................11

Shantilata Patnaik v. London Baptist Mission Corporation, (2001) 1 C.C.C. 446..................18

Sk Abdul v. Union, A. (1970) S.C. 479.....................................................................................14

Tejbai Tejshi v. Gangabai Dinanath Ulvekar, (2002) 1 L.R. 137............................................18

Thorp v. Holdsworth, 3 C.D. 641.............................................................................................15

Tildesley v. Harper, 7 C.D. 403................................................................................................16

Union v. Mandal, 63 C.W.N. 253.............................................................................................13

Union v. Mondal 63 C.W.N. 253..............................................................................................14

Union v. Pandurang, A. (1962) S.C. 630; Habibbhai v. Pyarelal, A. (1964) M.P. 62.............15

Statutes

Page | 6
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VIII Rule 3........................................................................11

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VIII Rule 4........................................................................11

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VIII Rule 5........................................................................11

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VI Rule 16....................................................................16

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VI Rule 17....................................................................16

Rules of Supreme Court, 1965 Rule

129

Other Authorities

Annual Practice, (1965) p 374.................................................................................................12

Books

Bullen & Leake, Pleadings 444-45

(7th ed.).....................................................................................................................................13

Supreme Court Practice, (1973) Vol. 1, p 292.........................................................................15

Page | 7
 INTRODUCTION

In a recently reported decision, Asha Kapoor v. Hari Om Sharda1, 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. This principle which is now firmly

embedded in as much as determination of civil suits, in terms of Order 8 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, was explained by the High Court to be one of seminal importance in this case.

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; he must either

deny or state definitely that the substance of each allegation is not admitted. The main

allegations which form the foundation of the suit should be dealt with in that way and

expressly denied. 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 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. If the plea is not taken in that

manner, then the allegation should be taken to be admitted.

1 Asha Kapoor v. Hari Om Sharda, (2010) 171 D.L.T. 743.

Page | 8
 Supreme Court Rules, 1965

Rule 12 of Order 18 of the Supreme Court Rules, 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, 1965.

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.

A traverse may be made either by a denial or by a statement of non-admission and

either expressly or by necessary implication.

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, as the case may be; and a general denial of

such allegations, or a general statement of non-admission of them, is not a sufficient

traverse of them.

But contrary to the manner of traversing the facts, 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, 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, 1965.

If there is no reply to a defence, there is an implied joinder of issue on that defence.

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.

2 Rules of Supreme Court, 1965 Rule 12.

Page | 9
 There can be no joinder of issue, implied or express, on a statement of claim or

counterclaim.
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, in the case of

an express joinder of issue, any such allegation is excepted from the joinder and is

stated to be admitted, in which case the express joinder of issue operates as a denial of

every other such allegation

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Page | 10
The manner in which allegations of fact in a plaint should be traversed is dealt with in Rules

3, 4 and 5 of the Order VIII of CPC.3

Rule 3 Order VIII of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

R.3 Denial to be specific---- It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement

to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal

specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except

damages.

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. East

India Trading Co4, Sarwan Singh v. Kankar Singh5but the rule as to nontraverse in written

statement ought to be applied judiciously. 6

It is to be noticed that defendant in a suit has to make specific denials of the allegations

contained in the plaint, if he does not admit the truth of the allegations under Order 8 Rule 3

CPC. 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, if not raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, or

would raise issues of fact not arising out of the plaint, under Rule 2 of Order 8.7

3 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VIII Rule 3; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VIII Rule 4;
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VIII Rule 5.

4 Badat & Co v. East India Trading Co, (1964) A.I.R. 538.

5 Sarwan Singh v. Kankar Singh, A.I.R. (1989) S.C. 606.

6 Hari v. Dharam, A. (1980) D. 316.

7 Desi Kedari v. Huzurabad Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., (1994) 2 A.L.T. 539, 546 (D.B.).

Page | 11
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; 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. The main allegations which form the foundation of the suit should be dealt

with in that way and expressly denied. 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. Facts not specifically dealt with will be taken to be

admitted.8

It is often not enough for a party to deny an allegation in his opponents pleading; he must

go further and dispute its validity in law, or set up some affirmative case of his own in answer

to it. It will not serve his turn merely to traverse the allegation; he must confess and avoid it.

A defendant, however, is not bound to admit an allegation which he seeks thus to avoid or

which he alleges to be bad in law.. Any number of defences may be pleaded together in the

same defence, although they are obviously inconsistent subject only to this, that

embarrassing defences may be struck out. (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, 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. Thus if a plaintiff asserts:

8 Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VIII Rule 5.

9 Annual Practice, (1965) p 374.

Page | 12
The defendant broke and entered the said shop or seized, took and carried away all the

furniture, 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, took and carried away any of

the furniture, stock-in-trade; or other effects which were therein10

This was approved in Govindram v. Gulab.11

Pleading of not-known is not tantamount to a pleading of not admitted. 12 A denial of a

knowledge of fact is not a denial of the fact, nor is it even putting the fact in issue. 13 The

expression not admitted is a specific denial. 14 It has, however, been held only alleging that

para 2 of the plaint is not admitted, is not specific denial of each allegation of fact in that

para.15 An omnibus denial of all notices required to be served under the law is not sufficient.

Further, if notice is denied, no question can arise as to its legality or validity. 16 Bare denial of

adoption is denial of fact of adoption and its validity. 17 In a money claim defendant should

10 Bullen & Leake, Pleadings 444-45 (7th ed.).

11 Govindram v. Gulab A. (1949) N. 394.

12 Lakshmi v. Ramlal, A. (1931) A. 423.

13 Chettier Firm v. Ko Lu A. (1934) R. 278; Mohammandi v. Nawaz, A. (1956) Hyd. 18.

14 Balaghat v. Abid, (1995) I.C. 1.

15 Ganga v. Prem, A. (1949) A. 173; Rishab v. Motilal, A. (1949) N. 21, 23; Punit v. Md Majid, A.
(1964) P. 348.

16 Union v. Mandal, 63 C.W.N. 253.

17 Naga v. Sukya, A. (1953) N. 239.

Page | 13
say what sum has been paid off and if the plea is in full satisfaction, it should be distinctly

stated.18

In a suit for damages, it is not necessary to deny specifically the damages claimed; it is

sufficient to plead generally.19

Statement in an insurance proposal not challenged by the Insurance Co. in written statement

as incorrect cannot be investigated and no amount of evidence is admissible to prove it. 20 An

omnibus denial of service of all notices that are required to be served can never be accepted

as sufficient.21 A plaintiff suing in ejectment can only succeed on the strength of his own title.

It is sufficient that plaintiffs title is denied in the written statement.22

A written statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint and when

the 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 evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In

such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary.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.24

18 Bhagela v. Abdul, 36 I.C. 77.

19 Ross & Co. v. Scriven, 20 C.W.N. 1192.

20 Bal K.r v. New India Ins. Co, A. (1959) P. 102.

21 Union v. Mondal 63 C.W.N. 253.

22 Jagdish v. Said Ahmed, A. ( 1949) P.C. 59.

23 Sambhaji Laxmanrao Pawar v. Abdul Wahed s/o Rahmatullah, (1995) 1 Mah. L.J. 22, 27 (D.B.).

24 Hirendra Nath Basu v. Kshetra Mohan Dutta, (1999) A.I.H.C. 667, 669 (Cal.).

Page | 14
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.25 Where the truth of the facts alleged in the plaint, though not

specifically dealt with in the corresponding para of written statement was dealt in additional

pleadings, the allegations in the plaint must be considered to be traversed. 26 Where a written

statement is too vague and too general, 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. 27

The denial must be specific in express terms definite and un-ambiguous. A denial of the

execution of Wakf deed coupled with an allegation that the deed was a nominal, taken by

undue influence and was never acted upon will not come under the term specific denial. 28

An admission in pleading must be taken as a whole.29

Rule 4 Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

R.4. Evasive denial-----Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must

not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a

certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular

amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how

much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be

sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances.

25 Binda v. United Bank, A. (1961) P. 152.

26 Sk Abdul v. Union, A. (1970) S.C. 479.

27 Faquir v. Thakur, A. (1941) O. 457; Ali Kedar v. Govind, 17 C. 840, 848.

28 Mohammed Sab Wallab Gafar Sab v. Abdul Gani Wallab Mohammed Hayath, A. 1985 Kant. 177,
180.

29 Azgor Ali v. Reazuddin Miah, A. (1989) Gauhati 74, 76.

Page | 15
A traverse whether by denial or refusal to admit, must not be evasive but must answer the

point of substance, for a traverse which is evasive or does not answer the point of substance is
30
not a specific traverse of the allegation. Evasive denial is not sufficient. Allegation of fact

must be admitted clearly or denied boldly. The purport and effect of the denial must be clear

and distinct. A defense that: The terms of the agreement were never definitely agreed upon

as alleged, was held evasive.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. The principal

underlying this rule is that pleadings should be specific. 32 General allegations in the plaint

cannot be said to be admitted because of general denial in written statement. 33 Where the

plaintiff specifically alleged that the tenancy commenced on the first day of each calendar

month, the defendant vaguely denied the same, did not allege that the tenancy commenced on

the 10th of each month, the plaintiffs contention that the tenancy commenced on the first day

of each month was accepted and Court found accordingly.34 In case of evasive denial or non-

specific denial by defendant/ appellant of the plaintiff/respondents case there can be

constructive admission.35Evasive denials are deprecated and the points of defence must be

stated specifically and clearly.36 Evasive denials must be construed as admission. 37 If the

denial of fact is not specific but evasive, the fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an
30 Supreme Court Practice, (1973) Vol. 1, p 292.

31 Thorp v. Holdsworth, 3 C.D. 641.

32 Narinder v. King, A. (1928) L. 769.

33 Union v. Pandurang, A. (1962) S.C. 630; Habibbhai v. Pyarelal, A. (1964) M.P. 62.

34 Ramchandra Jamnadas Kalariya v. Nuruddinbhai, A.I.R. (2005) Bom. 107.

35 Dinesh K. Singhania v. Cal. Stock Exchange Ascocn. Ltd., (2005) 2 C.H.N. 601.

Page | 16
event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary. But under the proviso to r

5 the court may, in its discretion, require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by

such admission.38 By "point of substance" is meant the gist and meaning of the allegation

traversed, as distinct from details which are comparatively immaterial. Thus it is evasive to

plead: "defendant never offered a bribe of 500", the words or any other sum" should be

added.39 Defective or embarrassing pleading must be struck out. 40 Defendant may ask for

leave to amend.41

Rule 5 Order VIII Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

R.5. Specific Denial-----

1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication,

or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, 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,

36 Sarifian v. Feratioul, A. (1923) C. 578.

37 Chothram v. Khem, A. (1929) S. 71.

38 Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co. A. (1964) S.C. 5381.

39 Tildesley v. Harper, 7 C.D. 403.

40 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VI Rule 16.

41 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VI Rule 17.

Page | 17
(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce

judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a

disability, but the court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved.

(3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the

court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a

pleader.

(4) Whenever a judgment Is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in

accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment

was pronounced.

Meaning of terms
Necessary Implication- The words refer only to a denial and not a non-admission.

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.42
Except as against a person under disability- The term Person under Disability

has not been defined in our Code. It means minors and persons of unsound mind to

which Order 32 applies. The rule has nothing to do with the conduct of the suit

afterwards. For instance, 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.43

Proviso- 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. Gordhandas & Co. v. D Arvind Mills, (1974) Bom. L.R. 119.

43 Naggapa v. Sadalingappa, A. (1919) M. 698.

Page | 18
 be proved by other evidence. The Court has discretion to require any fact so admitted

by implication to be proved otherwise by such admission.44

Appeal- Against a decree passed under Order 8, Rule 8, remedy is by way of appeal

and not restoration application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC.45

Remedy- Application under Order 9, Rule 13 for setting aside the decree passed

under Order 8, Rule 5/10 is not barred.46

44 Sarala v. Birendra, A. (1961) M.P. 127.

45 Tejbai Tejshi v. Gangabai Dinanath Ulvekar, (2002) 1 L.R. 137.

46 Shantilata Patnaik v. London Baptist Mission Corporation, (2001) 1 C.C.C. 446.

Page | 19
 Case Analysis

Case 1: Asha Kapoor v. 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. It was held

that, "as per written statement of petitioner it is apparent that, she has nowhere specifically

denied that she has not acquired vacant and physical possession of premises no. C-91, IIIrd

Floor, West, Gorakh Park Ext. Shahadra, Delhi. 16.

Case 2: Dinesh Kumar Singhania v. Calcutta Stock Exchange48

Facts: The plaintiff/ respondent sued the defendant/ appellant for a decree for a certain sum

along with interest. The claim was contested by the defendant/ appellant by filing a written

statement. Before the trial judge, the plaintiff filed an application for a decree on admission

on the basis of some averments in the pleading of the defendant. 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. The order was

challenged in the instant appeal. The trial court held that there was no clear admission by the

defendant. The law on judgement on admission was discussed and appeal was allowed. The

suit was expedited.

47 Asha Kapoor v. Hari Om Sharda, (2010) 171 D.L.T. 743.

48Dinesh Kumar Singhania v. Calcutta Stock Exchange, (2003) S.C.C. OnLine Cal. 55.

Page | 20
Held: In the instant case, the pleadings do not show either any express or constructive

admission. 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.

Referring to Order 8, Rule 3, 4 and 5, the Court said that in case of evasive denial or non-

specific denial by defendant/ appellant of the plaintiff/ respondents case, there can be

constructive admission. But Rules 3, 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.

Case 2: Athiyappan v. Pavayee49

In this case the defendants failed to deny the Plaintiffs readiness and willingness and

financial capacity.

Thus as per Order 8 Rule 3 and 5 which state that the denial must be specific, a decree for

specific performance against the defendants was rightly granted.

49 Athiyappan v. Pavayee, (2010) S.C.C. OnLine Mad. 2225.

Page | 21
 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; he must either

deny or state definitely that the substance of each allegation is not admitted. The main

allegations which form the foundation of the suit should be dealt with in that way and

expressly denied. 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 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. If the plea is not taken in that

manner, then the allegation should be taken to be admitted.

Page | 22
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEB LINKS

1. http://denyingallegations.blogspot.in/2015/06/please-first-read-disclaimerat-bottom.html

2. http://legalperspectives.blogspot.in/2010/09/if-not-denied-accepted-high-court.html

3. http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/0/2addb4da2a13497f80256d2b0046b3aa?OpenDocument

4. http://himanshuaroras.blogspot.in/2013/02/written-statement-order-viii-of-cpc-of.html

5. http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/codeofcivilprocedure/index.php

BOOKS

1. Code of Civil Procedure, Wadhwa & Company 2004.

2. Case and material on Code of Civil Procedure with State Amendment, Eastern Book

Company, 2006, 4th ed.

3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 113-to order XXI-Rule 73, Delhi Law House,

2006.

Page | 23