Skip to main content

Plaint and Written Statement in a Civil Suit

 Plaint and Written Statement in a Civil Suit


Plaint:

As per Order IV Rule 2, a suit is instituted by presenting a plaint. 

  • A plaint is a document which describes (Order VII Rule 1 )

  •  all the four essentials of a suit i.e. parties, cause of action, subject matter and the relied claimed. If one of the essentials is inadequately described or is absent, then the plaint will be considered incomplete.  

  • Jurisdiction of the court. 

  • Not barred by limitation. 

  • An incomplete or inchoate plaint may be returned or rejected. 

  • `Rejected (Order VII Rule 11)

    • Does not disclose CoA

    • Barred by limitation

    • Incorrect valuation of the claim amount

    • Insufficient payment of court fees 

    • Appealable especially if it is on the ground of limitation.

    • This is done at the preliminary stage. However, different states have different rules regarding this. Gujarat: cannot be rejected after settlement of issues.

    •  The aspects of rejected plaint can be decided by either a competent officer of the  court or a judge. 

  • Returned (Order VII Rule 10)

    • To be presented before the proper Court for adjudication. This can be done at any stage of a suit. 

    • It is based on the aspect of jurisdiction. 

    • Not appealable 

    • However, orders with regard to return plaint are also appealable under Order 43 Rule1. 



Written statement:

  • It is the response of the defendant to the plaint filed by the plaintiff.

  • The defendant first has to ensure and verify the exhibits annexed to a plaint. Wherever there exists a doubt, the defendant can seek inspection from the plaintiff.

  • After that, the written statement is drafted paragraph to paragraph to deny whatever is incorrect in the plaintiff’s plaint. If defendant remains silent on any aspect and it is not denied specifically or by necessary implication, then that ground will be considered to have been admitted by the defendant. Order VIII Rule 3

  • Once the denials are over, the defendant must raise by his pleadings all matters which show that the suit is not maintainable. Order VIII Rule 2

  • The defendant shall also be entitled to raise any claim for set off or a counter claim in the written statement.  

  • Set off :  

    • Suit should be for recovery of money 

    • The claim of the defendant against the plaintiff should be for an ascertained sum of money

    • The sum should be legally recoverable

    • Should be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court entertaining the suit. 

    • Both parties must fill the same character in set off as well as the suit.

  • Types of Set off :  

    • Equitable set off: It may be for an unascertained sum of money. It is a matter of discretion of court. The claim must have arisen from the same transaction. 

    • Legal set off: For an ascertained sum of money. It can be claimed as a matter of right if conditions are fulfilled. It is not necessary that the claim arises from the same transaction. Normally, these are seen in India. 


  • Counter Claim :

    • Provision for counter claim was added in the CPC by an amendment in the year 1976 to ensure there was no multiplicity of suits. 

    • Under counter claim, the defendant can set up any claim arising out of a CoA accruing against the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the counter claim be submitted with the written statement. However, the CoA must have arisen before the written statement is submitted.

    • The plaintiff is entitled to file a written statement against the counter claim. Even if a suit is dismissed, withdrawn or stayed, the proceeding under counter claim will stand to continue independent of the suit as if the defendant had filed a cross suit against the plaintiff. 

  • Conditions of Counter Claim :

    • It need not be a counter claim, it can be any claim arising out of any CoA arisen before submission of written statement. 

    • Relief claimed can be of any means i.e. monetary or non-monetary. 

    • Counter claim need not arise from the same transaction. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more