CPCWritten statementSupreme Court of India

Modula India v Kamakhya Singh

(1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 61919881 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The plaintiff made specific factual allegations in the plaint. In the written statement, the defendant dealt with these allegations by merely stating they were "not admitted" without providing any explanation or counter-version.
Issue
Whether a bare statement that allegations are "not admitted" without further explanation constitutes a valid denial under Order VIII Rules 3 to 5.
Held
Order VIII Rule 3 requires the defendant to deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint.
Principle
An evasive denial in a written statement is treated as an admission under Order VIII Rule 5. Where the defendant merely says an allegation is 'not admitted' without giving any explanation or counter-facts, the denial is evasive and the allegation is deemed admitted.
Cite this

Facts

  • The plaintiff made specific factual allegations in the plaint
  • In the written statement, the defendant dealt with these allegations by merely stating they were "not admitted" without providing any explanation or counter-version
  • No specific denial with supporting facts was offered
  • The question arose whether such a bare "not admitted" response constitutes a valid denial

Issue

  1. Whether a bare statement that allegations are "not admitted" without further explanation constitutes a valid denial under Order VIII Rules 3 to 5.

Held

  • Order VIII Rule 3 requires the defendant to deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint
  • Rule 5 provides that every allegation not specifically denied shall be taken as admitted
  • A mere "not admitted" without reasons or counter-facts is an evasive denial
  • An evasive denial does not satisfy the requirement of specific denial
  • The consequence: the allegation is deemed admitted under Rule 5

Ratio decidendi

A written statement must specifically deal with each material allegation. A bare "not admitted" without explanation is an evasive denial treated as admission under Order VIII Rule 5. Specific denial requires positive counter-statement or reasons.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Written statement rules: Authority on evasive vs specific denial
  • Order VIII Rule 5: Deemed admission of non-specifically denied facts
  • Key line for exam: "In Modula India v. Kamakhya Singh (1988), the Supreme Court held that merely stating allegations are 'not admitted' without explanation is evasive denial, treated as admission under O.VIII R.5."

Cite this

Citation

Modula India v. Kamakhya Singh (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 619

Reported: (1988) 4 SCC 619. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.