ASSIGNMENT 1

Course: Labour Law

DRAFT: WRITTEN STATEMENT IN A MONEY RECOVERY SUIT

(On behalf of the Defendant — Disputing Liability)

Submitted to
Amity University Uttar Pradesh

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of

LLB (Hons)

By

AYON BAROOAH
(A032170124019)
Date: 22/02/2026

Under the guidance of

Dr. Priyanka Gupta

Amity Institute of Psychology

and Allied Sciences Amity
University, Sector-125
 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing — Written Statement

PREFATORY NOTE
This assignment comprises two parts. Part I contains a brief explanatory note on
the law and structure of a Written Statement in a money recovery suit. Part II sets
out the complete draft Written Statement in proper legal form as required by the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order VIII), the rules of pleading, and the facts
assumed for this exercise.
Facts Assumed: The plaintiff, Rajiv Mehta, a resident of Delhi, has filed a suit in
the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Delhi, claiming Rs. 12,50,000
(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) against the defendant, Suresh Kumar
Sharma, also a resident of Delhi, alleging that the said sum was advanced as a
friendly loan on 15 March 2021, repayable within one year with interest at 12%
per annum, evidenced by a promissory note. The defendant disputes having
received any loan, denies executing the promissory note, and contends that any
payment received was in settlement of a prior business transaction between the
parties. The suit has been filed on 20 January 2024.

PART I — EXPLANATORY NOTE ON THE WRITTEN STATEMENT

1. Legal Basis
A Written Statement is the defendant's formal response to a plaint filed before a
civil court. It is governed by Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC). Rule 1 of Order VIII requires the defendant to file a written statement of
his defence within 30 days of service of summons (extendable up to 90 days by
court order for sufficient cause). Rule 9 requires that every allegation of fact in the
plaint, if not specifically denied, shall be taken as admitted.
2. Structure of a Written Statement
A proper Written Statement must contain: (a) Preliminary Objections (going to the
maintainability of the suit itself); (b) Para-wise Reply to the Plaint (specific
admission or denial of each paragraph); (c) Substantive Defence — Additional
facts set up by the defendant by way of defence; (d) Set-off or Counterclaim (if
any); and (e) Prayer — relief sought by the defendant. The Written Statement
must be verified by affidavit under Order VI Rule 15 CPC read with Section 26
CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, where applicable).
3. Key Principles of Pleading
Under Order VI CPC, pleadings must contain only material facts and not the
evidence by which they are to be proved (Rule 2). Every pleading must be
concise, precise, and divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively (Rule 2).

Page 1 of 11
 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing — Written Statement

Damages need not be specifically proved in pleadings. Conditions precedent (such

as notice requirements) must be averred. Denial must be specific — a general
denial that 'the defendant denies each and every allegation of the plaint' is not a
sufficient denial under Order VIII Rule 3 CPC. Each allegation of fact must be
either specifically admitted, specifically denied, or stated to be beyond the
defendant's knowledge (Order VIII Rule 5).
4. Preliminary Objections
Preliminary objections are raised at the threshold, before the merits, and go to the
competence of the court or the maintainability of the suit. In a money recovery
suit, common preliminary objections include: lack of jurisdiction (pecuniary or
territorial), bar of limitation, non-joinder or misjoinder of parties, cause of action
not disclosed, and suit not properly valued. These objections, if sustained, may
result in dismissal of the suit without a trial on merits.

PART II — THE DRAFT WRITTEN STATEMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION,

DELHI

Civil Suit No. _______ of 2024

Rajiv Mehta,
S/o Mohan Lal Mehta, R/o 14-B, Model Town, Delhi — 110 009.
... Plaintiff
Versus
Suresh Kumar Sharma,
S/o Ram Kishan Sharma, R/o C-47, Ashok Vihar, Phase II, Delhi — 110 052.
... Defendant

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

The Defendant, Suresh Kumar Sharma, most respectfully submits this Written
Statement in response to the plaint filed by the Plaintiff and states as follows:

A. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
I. That the suit as filed is not maintainable in law and on facts. The Plaintiff has
suppressed material facts, mis-stated the nature of the transaction between the

Page 2 of 11
 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing — Written Statement

parties, and has come to this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands. The suit deserves
to be dismissed in limine on this ground alone.
II. That the alleged cause of action, as set out in the plaint, is false, fabricated, and
does not disclose any valid and subsisting cause of action against the Defendant.
No amount of Rs. 12,50,000 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Thousand) or any other
sum was ever advanced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as a friendly loan or
otherwise. The plaint is therefore liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a)
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
III. That the suit is barred by estoppel, acquiescence, and waiver. The Plaintiff
had, through his conduct and communications subsequent to the alleged date of
the transaction, acknowledged that no amount was outstanding as a loan from the
Defendant. The Plaintiff is estopped in law from now asserting a claim to the
contrary.
IV. That the suit is misconceived and is an abuse of the process of this Hon'ble
Court, having been filed with the collateral purpose of coercing the Defendant into
settling a disputed business claim. The Defendant reserves the right to seek costs
and damages for such abuse on appropriate application.
V. That the promissory note, if any, relied upon by the Plaintiff is not a validly
executed negotiable instrument within the meaning of Section 4 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. The Defendant denies having executed any such
instrument. Any document produced by the Plaintiff purporting to be a promissory
note is forged, fabricated, and bears a signature that is not that of the Defendant.
The Defendant reserves the right to seek forensic examination of the disputed
document.

B. PARA-WISE REPLY TO THE PLAINT

1. With reference to paragraph 1 of the plaint: The Defendant admits that the
Plaintiff, Rajiv Mehta, resides at the address stated therein. The remaining
contents of paragraph 1, to the extent they assert any legal status or capacity
specific to the transaction alleged in the plaint, are denied.
2. With reference to paragraph 2 of the plaint: The Defendant admits his own
name and address as stated. It is further admitted that the Plaintiff and the
Defendant have known each other for several years and have had business
dealings in the past. The characterisation of these dealings as a 'friendly loan' is
specifically denied. The relationship between the parties was a commercial one

Page 3 of 11
 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing — Written Statement

arising from a partnership-like arrangement in a small printing business, and not a

lender-borrower relationship of any kind.
3. With reference to paragraph 3 of the plaint: The averment that on or about 15
March 2021, the Plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs. 12,50,000 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs
Fifty Thousand only) as a friendly loan to the Defendant is denied. No such
advance was made. It is submitted that on or around the said date, the Defendant
received a sum of Rs. 8,50,000 (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) from
the Plaintiff — which sum represented the settlement and final payment of the
Plaintiff's outstanding share in the profits and investment of the aforesaid printing
business, which the parties had agreed to wind up. This payment was received by
the Defendant not as a loan but as a rightful discharge of the Plaintiff's
commercial liability to the Defendant. A further sum of Rs. 4,00,000 was received
separately on another date and represented a distinct and unconnected business
transaction between the parties.
4. With reference to paragraph 4 of the plaint: The averment that the alleged loan
was repayable within one year from the date of advance, i.e., by 15 March 2022,
with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, is denied. No such agreement was ever
entered into between the parties. No interest was ever agreed upon. No repayment
period was ever fixed. There was no loan to be repaid.
5. With reference to paragraph 5 of the plaint: The averment that the Defendant
executed a promissory note dated 15 March 2021 in favour of the Plaintiff
acknowledging the alleged loan and the terms thereof is specifically and
emphatically denied. The Defendant states that he has never executed any
promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff. Any document produced by the Plaintiff
purporting to bear the Defendant's signature as a promissory note is a fabricated
and forged document. The Defendant has not authorised any person to execute
any such document on his behalf. The Defendant reserves all rights to take
appropriate legal action in respect of the fabrication of such document.
6. With reference to paragraph 6 of the plaint: The averment that the Plaintiff
made repeated demands for repayment, both orally and in writing, is denied. No
valid demand for repayment of any loan was ever made by the Plaintiff prior to
the filing of this suit. Any communication sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant —
if any — was in the context of their commercial disputes and not in the context of
any alleged loan. The Defendant categorically denies being in default of any
repayment obligation.

Page 4 of 11
 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing — Written Statement

7. With reference to paragraph 7 of the plaint: The averment regarding the cause
of action is denied. The Defendant submits that no cause of action exists or has
accrued in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant, since the foundational
premise of the suit — the alleged friendly loan — is false. The plaint does not
disclose any valid and subsisting cause of action against this Defendant.
8. With reference to paragraph 8 of the plaint: The averment regarding the
valuation of the suit and court fee is noted. The Defendant neither admits nor
denies the court fee paid, but submits that the suit itself is not maintainable and the
question of valuation and court fee does not arise in view of the preliminary
objections raised above.
9. With reference to paragraph 9 of the plaint: The jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court is not disputed to the extent of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.
However, the Defendant submits that the suit is not maintainable on merits and in
law as set out in the preliminary objections and the substantive defence pleaded
herein.

C. SUBSTANTIVE DEFENCE
1. The Defendant reiterates and re-adopts all the averments made in the
preliminary objections and the para-wise reply above as part of the substantive
defence.
2. The Defendant states that he and the Plaintiff were co-venturers in an informal
printing and stationery business operating under the trade name 'Mehta-Sharma
Printers' from approximately 2018 to 2021. The Defendant had contributed
machinery, operational management, and business connections to the venture,
while the Plaintiff had contributed working capital. The venture was wound up by
mutual consent in early 2021 following disputes over profit-sharing and the
Plaintiff's failure to contribute his agreed share of operational expenses.
3. That in or around February-March 2021, both parties reached an oral settlement
of their mutual accounts. Under the said settlement, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the
Defendant a total sum of Rs. 12,50,000 in full and final settlement of all dues,
representing the Defendant's share of business profits, the value of machinery
contributed by the Defendant, and reimbursement of expenses incurred by the
Defendant on the Plaintiff's behalf. The payments were received by the Defendant
in this capacity and not as a borrower.
4. That the amounts received by the Defendant from the Plaintiff were not
advanced as a loan and the Defendant has never acknowledged receiving any loan

Page 5 of 11
 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing — Written Statement

from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has cynically attempted to convert a settled
commercial transaction into a fabricated loan by producing a forged promissory
note — a document which the Defendant never signed and of which the
Defendant had no knowledge until the filing of the present suit.
5. That the Defendant is a person of good standing and financial means and had no
reason or occasion to borrow money from the Plaintiff. The Defendant's financial
position was, at all material times, sound. The allegation that he borrowed Rs.
12,50,000 from the Plaintiff as a 'friendly loan' is inherently implausible given the
commercial context and the history of the parties' relationship.
6. That the suit has been filed after a long and suspicious delay. The alleged loan
was said to have fallen due on 15 March 2022. The suit has been filed on 20
January 2024 — approximately 22 months after the alleged due date. No
explanation is offered in the plaint for this delay. The conduct of the Plaintiff in
not pursuing his alleged claim promptly is consistent with the Defendant's case
that no genuine loan exists.
7. That the Plaintiff has come to this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands. The suit is
motivated by malice and is an attempt to extract money from the Defendant by
exploiting the judicial process. The Defendant has been put to great inconvenience
and has suffered damage to his reputation and business standing as a result of the
filing of this false suit. The Defendant reserves the right to institute appropriate
proceedings for damages for malicious prosecution.

D. PRAYER
In view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:

(a) Dismiss the suit of the Plaintiff with costs;

(b) Uphold the preliminary objections raised by the Defendant and reject
the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
(c) Direct forensic/handwriting examination of the alleged promissory note
dated 15 March 2021, if produced by the Plaintiff;
(d) Award costs of this litigation, including advocate's fees, to the
Defendant; and
(e) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Page 6 of 11
 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing — Written Statement

And for this act of kindness, the Defendant shall ever pray.

Place: Delhi
Date: ___ / ___ / 2024

Sd/-
Suresh Kumar Sharma
Defendant

Drawn and filed by:

Adv. [Name of Counsel]
Enrolment No. [_________]
Advocate for the Defendant
Chamber: [Address and Contact]

VERIFICATION
I, Suresh Kumar Sharma, son of Ram Kishan Sharma, resident of C-47, Ashok
Vihar, Phase II, Delhi — 110 052, the Defendant above named, do hereby
solemnly affirm and verify that the contents of paragraphs A(I) to A(V)
(Preliminary Objections), paragraphs B(1) to B(9) (Para-wise Reply), and
paragraphs C(1) to C(7) (Substantive Defence) of the foregoing Written Statement
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief, and information. The
legal submissions and prayers contained therein are based on advice of my learned
Counsel and I believe them to be correct.

Verified at Delhi on this _____ day of __________ 2024.

Sd/-
Suresh Kumar Sharma
Deponent/Defendant

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION,
DELHI
Civil Suit No. _______ of 2024
Rajiv Mehta ...Plaintiff
Versus
Suresh Kumar Sharma ...Defendant
AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFENDANT

Page 7 of 11
 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing — Written Statement

I, Suresh Kumar Sharma, son of Ram Kishan Sharma, aged approximately 42

years, resident of C-47, Ashok Vihar, Phase II, Delhi — 110 052, do hereby
solemnly affirm on oath and state as under:

1. That I am the Defendant in the above-captioned suit and am fully conversant

with the facts of the case. I am competent to depose to the facts stated herein.
2. That I have read and understood the Written Statement filed on my behalf in the
above suit. The averments contained in the said Written Statement are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
3. That I have not received any sum of Rs. 12,50,000 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty
Thousand) or any other sum from the Plaintiff as a loan, friendly or otherwise.
The amounts received by me from the Plaintiff were in settlement of legitimate
commercial dues arising from our joint business venture.
4. That I have never executed any promissory note dated 15 March 2021 or on any
other date in favour of the Plaintiff. Any document produced by the Plaintiff
purporting to bear my signature as a promissory note is false, forged, and
fabricated.
5. That the contents of this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

Verified at Delhi on this _____ day of __________ 2024.

The contents of this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief. No part is false and nothing material has been concealed.

Sd/-
Suresh Kumar Sharma
Deponent

Sworn/affirmed before me on this _____ day of __________ 2024.

Sd/-
Oath Commissioner / Notary Public

NOTE ON RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND CASE LAW

Page 8 of 11
 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing — Written Statement

Statutory Provisions Governing This Draft:

Order VIII CPC (Written Statement): Rules 1–10 govern the form, contents, and
timelines for filing a Written Statement. Rule 1 prescribes the 30-day period for
filing (extendable to 90 days). Rule 2 requires pleading of new facts. Rule 3
requires specific denial. Rule 4 requires denial of documents to be specifically
made. Rule 5 provides that facts not denied are deemed admitted. Rule 9 requires
the Written Statement to meet each allegation.
Order VI CPC (Pleadings Generally): Rule 2 — only material facts; no evidence.
Rule 4 — conditions precedent. Rule 13 — departure in pleadings.
Section 4, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Defines a promissory note. The
alleged instrument must satisfy the essential requirements of unconditional
promise, certain sum, certain parties, and signature of the maker.
Section 101–103, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (or Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023): Burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff to prove (a) the existence of the loan,
(b) its terms, and (c) default. A promissory note, if proved, raises a presumption of
consideration under Section 118 NI Act — but only if its execution is proved,
which the Defendant specifically contests.

Relevant Decided Cases:

1. Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan AIR 2001 SC 2607 — A written statement
must specifically deny each allegation; a general denial is insufficient. Failure to
deny an allegation is taken as admission.
2. Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani (2003) 6 SCC 275 — The court
reiterated that in suits on promissory notes, once execution is admitted, the burden
shifts to the defendant to prove absence of consideration. Where execution is
denied, the plaintiff must first prove execution.
3. Kamla Devi v. Takhatmal AIR 1964 SC 859 — Oral evidence of loan
transactions is admissible to supplement or explain a document, but the primary
evidence of a promissory note is the instrument itself, whose execution must be
proved.
4. A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana
Paripalanai Sangam (2012) 6 SCC 430 — The court emphasised that pleadings are
the foundation of a case and that a party cannot lead evidence or make
submissions beyond what is pleaded.
5. Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (2003) 6 SCC 595 — In matters of loan
transactions, the court must examine the surrounding circumstances, the

Page 9 of 11
 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing — Written Statement

relationship of the parties, and the financial positions of the parties to determine
whether a genuine loan transaction took place.

Page 10 of 11