Topics covered

1) Rejection of plaint
Order VII rule 11: This rule lays down grounds on which a plaint can be rejected. Filing a
fresh plaint is not precluded under this rule. The grounds for rejection under this rule are:
i) Cause of action is not disclosed
ii) Relief is undervalued and it hasn’t been corrected by the plaintiff even after the
court or orders for revaluation.
iii) When the plaint has been written on a paper insufficiently stamped and has not
been corrected even after the court orders.
iv) When the suit is barred by law
v) When a duplicate copy of the plaint is not filled
vi) When proper procedure for admission of plaint has not been followed.
2) Filling of a fresh plaint after rejection of Plaint:
There are 2 methods by which a fresh plaint can be filed
a) Order VII rule 13: Under this rule a fresh plaint can be filed if the plaint has been
rejected under the grounds mentioned in Order VII rule 11
b) Section 96: Section 2 (2) gives us the definition of a decree and according to the
section, this definition is deemed to include rejection of a plaint. Section 96 deals
with appeals from original decree. It states that an appeal shall lie from every decree
passed by any court, as mentioned before; rejection of plaint comes within the ambit
of a decree. Going by this relation a fresh plaint can be filed under this section
3) Documents relied upon in a plaint
Order VII rule 14: This rule deals with the documents that are relied upon and the
procedure for submitting them. Order VII rule 14(1) lays down 3 grounds for production
of the plaint and they are:
a) Documents should be entered in a list
b) Documents shall be presented along with the plaint
c) The original document and the copy of the document need to be filed.

Order VII rule 14(3): This rule states that if a document ought (mandatory) to be
produced and it has not been produced then the documents shall not, without the leave of
the court be used as evidence during the hearing of the suit. (This is in the case where
copies of the document has not been submitted)

Order XIII rule 1: This rule allows the plaintiff to file original documents before the
settlement of the issues only if a copy of the original document has been submitted along
with the plaint. If he fails to do so, the document will not be used as evidence (courts
discretion).

Order VII rule 14 and Order XIII rule 1 does not apply to documents which are used to
refresh the memory of the witness and cross examine the witness. The reason behind this
is, these documents are used only to destroy the credibility of the witness or they are used
to prove the witness wrong.
4) Verification and signing of pleadings (Plaints and written statements).
Order VI rule 14: This rule talks about by who a pleading can be signed . The pleading
needs to be signed by the lawyer and the party making the pleading. When a party is
unable to sign the pleading for a good cause (eg: sign by companies) or due to absence
(lives in another country), the party can authorize another person by way of power of
attorney to sign on behalf of him.
Order VI rule 15: This rule concerns the procedure for verification of a pleading. The
procedures that need to be followed for verifying a pleading are:
a) A party pleading or someone acquainted with the facts of the case (according to the
court) will verify the contents at the foot of the pleading.
b) The person verifying should clearly state the facts he knows due to his own
knowledge and statements that he has heard and believed to be true.
c) The person verifying the facts needs to sign the pleading and mention the date and
place where he/she signed the pleading.
d) Affidavit in support of the pleading needs to be given

Method of verification: When a person is verifying the pleading, he needs to expressly

5) Written statements
Order 8 rule 1: This rule talks about the number of days given to the defendant to file
written statements from the date of service of summons. The defendant is given 30 days
to file the written statements from the date of service of summons and after 30 days. The
delay starts after 30days. If the defendant doesn’t submit within 30 days and there is no
justification from his side, order IX rule 6 (The court shall make an order that the suit
be heard ex-parte) would apply. If the court proceeds with the suit ex-parte but the
defendant has a good reason for the delay then order IX rule 7 (he will be heard as if he
had appeared on the day fixed for the appearance) applies. According to the statute
the defendant shall not be given more than 90 days from the date of service of summons.
In this rule the word “shall” is problematic; it’s a negative provision that doesn’t
explicitly mention if it is mandatory nature. But from the following case laws we can see
that it is not mandatory it is directory and the extension of time beyond 90 days depends
from case to case.
SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION 2 – AIR 2005 SC 3353
Issue: Whether the Court has any power or jurisdiction to extend the period of filing
written statements beyond 90 days.
Para 15 to 19: The court felt the need to find out the intention of the legislature. The
consequences which may follow and whether the same were intended by the legislature
have been kept in view by the court. The court relied up on many judgments to come to
conclusion. The court held that
1. The question cannot be resolved by laying down any general rule and it would
depend upon the facts of each case. The purpose for which the provision has
 been made and its nature, the intention of the legislature in making the
provision, the serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons resulting
from whether the provision is read one way or the other, the relation of the
particular provision to other provisions dealing with the same subject and
other considerations which may arise on the facts of a particular case including
the language of the provision, have all to be taken into account in arriving at
the conclusion whether a particular provision is mandatory or directory.
2. The section is not a Penal enactment for punishment and penalties and there
has to be reasonable elasticity of interpretation. The court also brings up the
point of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned
unheard. Based on the reasoning given it was held that subject to the proviso,
our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably
possible, in the light of that principle.
3. No penal consequences had been prescribed if the reply is not filed in the
prescribed time. The provision was held to be directory. It was observed that
the provision is more by way of procedure to achieve the object of speedy
disposal of the case.

 KAILASH VS. NANHKU – AIR 2005 SC 2441

Issue: Whether the time limit of 90 days as prescribed by the Proviso appended to Rule 1 of
Order VIII of the CPC is mandatory or directory in nature?

Rationale provided by the court : The court talks about the text of order VIII rule 1 of the
CPC , and analyse is highlighting the following points :

(1) The rule creates an obligation for the defendant to respond with a written
statement within 30 days of the issue of the summons.
(2) The rule does not talk about the power of the court to accept a written
statement beyond the 30 or 90 day limit.
(3) The court talks about how the object of substituting the order VIII rule 1 in its
current form was to make sure that defendants do not use provisions of law to
slow down the delivery of justice , much to the inconvenience of appellants
and petitioners who are looking for quick relief. However, just for the
achievement of a speedy trial , fairness cannot be compromised as it is a
crucial element of justice.

Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC
or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave
the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. The Court approved
in no unmistakable terms the approach of moderating into wholesome directions what is
regarded as mandatory on the principle that "Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant,
not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the
mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.
The court also observed “though the power of the Court under the proviso appended to Rule 1
of Order VIII is circumscribed by the words __ "shall not be later than ninety days" but the
consequences flowing from non-extension of time are not specifically provided though they
may be read by necessary implication."

They also observe Order VIII rule 10, the court need not necessarily pronounce judgment
against the defendant who failed to file written statement as required by Rule 1 or Rule.

The Court further held that the provision is more by way of procedure to achieve the object of
speedy disposal of such disputes. The strong terms in which the provision is couched are an
expression of 'desirability' but do not create any kind of substantive right in favour of the
complainant by reason of delay so as to debar the respondent from placing his version in
defence in any circumstances whatsoever.

This brings us to another aspect of the case where though there is a delay it will not create a
right in favour of the other party. The reason behind this is, this order is a procedural law and
it doesn’t seek to impose a penalty.
This however is different under the limitation act. The limitation Act bars you from filing a
suit. This creates a positive right. This accrues a right not to be sued. It creates a right on the
other party (the one who hasn’t violated the limitation period)

Order VIII rule 10: order VIII rule 1 is silent on the consequences of filing the written
statements late, hence the consequence is mentioned in order VIII rule 10. If there is a delay
in filing the written statements, either the court can pass an ex-parte order against the party or
an order that the court deems fit (this could also be an extension of time).

Order VIII rule 3, 4, 5: These 3 rules concern the denial of allegations by the defendant.
[Deny and not admit – Protects from deemed admissions]

Denied: This specifically means that the defendant is denying the allegations made against
him.

Not admit: When you do not agree to the allegations made but don’t specifically deny it.

Order VIII rule 3: The defendant has to deal with every fact individually. The method of
denial followed in rule 3 is confess or avoid.

Order VIII rule 4: The point of substance needs to be targeted. Mere denial of a fact is not
sufficient.
Order VIII rule 5(1): If you do not specifically deny or not admit a particular fact in a plaint,
the court will treat that fact as if you have accepted it. But depending on the courts discretion,
the plaintiff has to prove that fact.

If a written statement has not been filed by a defendant, the party still has the right to cross
examine the witness and destroy the credibility of the opposition witness.

Order VIII rule 1A – The Original document as well as the copy needs to be given along
with the written statement, if it is being relied upon. The same procedure that was followed
for plaints will be allowed.
Order VIII rule 9: Subsequent pleadings- No pleading can be presented after a written
statement is filed unless it is a counter claim or a set off. The court can ask for a written
statement or an additional written statement which needs to be filed within 30 days.

Order VIII rule 6: This rule governs set off. . You agree to what the plaintiff says but not
completely (for eg: A owes B Rs 2000, A agrees that he owes B money but he owes a lesser
amount to B)
Set off is like a plaint filed by the defendant hence you have an exchange of roles and the
plaintiff who now becomes a defendant has to file a written statement to defend himself and
the rules of a written statement will apply.

Order VIII rule 6A: This rule governs counter claims. Counter claim is a new claim + set
off. A completely new claim maid by the defendant against the plaintiff. When a set off value
increases, it automatically becomes a counter claim. (Example: In a rent suit, Eviction +
harassment of a person is a counter claim). Counter claims are treated as plaints and will have
the same rules that govern the plaint. The written statement to this counter claim has to be
filed by the plaintiff within the time allotted by the court.

Counter claims and set offs are plaints in a written statement. The party that has to defend
these two have the right to file a written statement.