Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.
Abstract
| It appears, it may not be correct to say – In Thangam v. Navamani Ammal the Supreme Court laid down the ‘law’ that the Written Statements would stand vitiated – if (or merely for) no “para-wise” denial of facts in the plaint; and, such Written Statements (without ‘para-wise’ denial) would be eschewed from consideration even if they do deal distinctly with each allegation of fact in the plaint. |
Thangam v. Navamani Ammal
In Thangam v. Navamani Ammal (C.T. Ravikumar & Rajesh Bindal, JJ.), our Apex Court observed (AIR 2024 SC 1324) as under:
- “15. In the absence of 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, as there is no specific admission or denial with reference to the allegation in different paras.”
Finally, the Court held as under:
- “15.6. We have made the aforesaid observations as regularly this Court is faced with the situation where there are no specific para-wise reply given in the written statement/ counter affidavit filed by the defendant(s)/ respondent(s). In our opinion, if the aforesaid correction is made, it may streamline the working.”
It appears, it may not be correct to say –
- The Supreme Court laid down the ‘law’ that the Written Statements would stand vitiated – if (or merely for) no “para-wise” denial of facts in the plaint;
- and,
- such Written Statements (without ‘para-wise’ denial) would be eschewed from consideration even if they do deal distinctly with each allegation of fact in the plaint.
The Supreme Court pointed out as under –
- “15.1 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.
- 15.2 The requirement of Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC are specific admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. The same would necessarily mean dealing with the allegations in the plaint para-wise. In the absence thereof, the respondent can always try to read one line from one paragraph and another from different paragraph in the written statement to make out his case of denial of the allegations in the plaint resulting in utter confusion.”
The Apex Court relied on, and quoted from, the following two decisions:
- Badat and Co. Bombay v. East India Trading Co AIR 1964 SC 538.
- Lohia Properties (P) Ltd. v. Atmaram Kumar (1993) 4 SCC 6.
Badat and Co. Bombay v. East India Trading Co
In Badat and Co. Bombay v. East India Trading Co, AIR 1964 SC 538, it is held as under:
- “11. Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes, among others, that the plaintiff shall give in the plaint the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose, and the facts showing the court has jurisdiction. The object is to enable the defendant to ascertain from the plaint the necessary facts so that he may admit or deny them. Order VIII provides for the filing of a written-statement, the particulars to be contained therein and the manner of doing so; XX XX XX 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.”
Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia v. Atmaram Kumar
In Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia v. Atmaram Kumar, (1993) 4 SCC 6, it is held as under:
- “14. 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.
- 15. 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.”
