Introduction
The Apex Court, in its recent judgement, observed that the Defendant’s omission to furnish para-wise response to the Plaintiff’s Statements shall result in deemed admission of the statement made in the Plaint against the Defendant. The Court, by virtue of its order, has issued precise directives pertaining to the formulation of a Written Statement.

Background
In a civil appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue pertained to the genuineness of a Will, which was registered by the testator. A suit was filed by the beneficiary of the Will, who was mentioned in the Will as the daughter of the brother of the testator. The third wife of the testator was named as the defendant. The trial court decreed the suit, holding the Will to be genuine. However, the first appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court. In the second appeal filed before the High Court, the judgment of the trial court was restored. Against the order of the High Court in the second appeal, a civil appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Observations of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal and upheld the order of the high court by which judgment of the trial court by which the suit was decreed was restored.

The Supreme Court observed that Order VIII, Rules 3 and 5 of the CPC clearly provide for specific admission and denial of pleadings in the Plaint. A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufficient. The proviso to Order VIII, Rule 5 of the CPC provides that even the admitted facts may not be treated as admitted; still, in its discretion, the Court may require those facts to be proved. This is an exception to the general rule, where the facts admitted are not required to be proved. The requirements of Order VIII, Rules 3 and 5 are specific admission and denial of pleadings in the Plaint. This would necessarily mean dealing with the allegations in the Plaint para-wise. In the absence thereof, the Defendant can always try to read one line from one paragraph and another from a different paragraph in the Written Statement to make out his own case.

The court also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Badat and Co, Bombay V/s. East India Trading Company AIR 1964 SC 458 where it was held that 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 another judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Lohia Properties Private Limited, Tinsukia, Dibrugrah, Assam V/s Atmaram Kumar, reported at (1993) 4 SCC 6 the Supreme Court had held that Rule 5 of Order VIII 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.

In conclusion. Hon’ble Supreme Court made the above observations, as the Court is regularly faced with situations where there are no specific para-wise replies given to the written statement/counter-affidavit filed by the Defendant/Respondents. The Supreme Court expressed its opinion that if the aforesaid corrections are made, it may streamline the working of courts¹.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar