Written Statement

From Justice Definitions Project

What is a 'Written Statement'?

A Written Statement is a formal pleading filed by the defendant in response to the plaintiff’s suit. It addresses the facts alleged in the plaint by either admitting or denying them, and may present new facts to show that the suit is not maintainable. Additionally, the defendant may use the Written Statement to claim a Set-Off to adjust debts or raise a Counter-Claim to seek separate relief against the plaintiff.

Official definition of 'Written Statement' 

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, this is a pleading delivered by a defendant to address the allegations in a plaintiff's claim, designed to admit or deny specific assertions or state fresh facts in explanation or avoidance.  

'Written Statement' as defined in legislation

The Written Statement is provided for under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). However, it is not formally defined within the Code, nor is it defined in the General Clauses Act. Instead, this provision primarily lays down the procedural framework for the document's submission, focusing on the timelines and the obligation of the defendant to respond.

'Written Statement' as defined in case law(s)

Food Corporation of India v. Yadav Engineer & Contractor. [1]

The Supreme Court of India in this case, defined the expression “written statement” as a "term of specific connotation ordinarily signifying a reply to the plaint filed by the plaintiff".

Variations

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Written Statement is a formal pleading unique to Civil Law under Order VIII of the CPC, requiring a precise, line-by-line denial of the plaintiff's claims.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

In Criminal Law, specifically under Section 256 of the BNSS , the accused is called to enter their defense only if not acquitted after the prosecution's case, and while they may put in a written statement for the Judge to file with the record, it remains an optional exercise of their right to defense rather than a procedural requirement.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

In Arbitration, the document is formally termed a Statement of Defence as a reply to the Statement of Claim, with a statutory expectation that such pleadings be completed within a strict six-month timeframe.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015

In commercial disputes, the Written Statement must be supported by a Statement of Truth and a mandatory declaration on oath affirming that all relevant documents in the defendant's possession have been disclosed and annexed. Unlike the CPC where courts may allow late filings, this Act imposes a rigorous discovery regime and a non-extendable 120-day deadline for filing the defense; as held by the Supreme Court in SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.[2], once this statutory period expires, the right to file the Written Statement is forfeited and cannot be condoned by the court.

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (Order XXVIII)

In proceedings before the Supreme Court, a Written Statement must move beyond general or evasive denials to specifically address each allegation of fact, as any point not explicitly denied or disputed by necessary implication is legally deemed to be admitted. This procedural rigour ensures that the point of substance is answered directly, allowing the Court to treat set-offs and counter-claims as independent cross-suits for a consolidated final judgment. While these rules parallel Order VIII of the CPC, they emphasize the Court’s discretionary power to pronounce judgment immediately against a defaulting party; a failure to specifically deny an allegation or deny by necessary implication, shall be taken to be admitted against the defendant.

History of Written Statement

The history of the Written Statement under the CPC reflects a legislative effort to balance the need for a fair trial with the urgent need to expedite civil cases. While the CPC of 1908 established the baseline procedure, the 1976 Amendment emphasized faster disposal of suits. A more drastic attempt was made via the 1999 Amendment to strictly cap the filing period at 30 days without extension, but this faced stiff resistance from the Bar and was never fully enforced. Consequently, the 2002 Amendment introduced the current structure: mandating filing within 30 days, extendable up to 90 days only if reasons are recorded in writing.

27th Law Commission Report (1964)

The 27th Law Commission declined to merge the requirement for filing a Written Statement into the summons itself—a proposal originally made in the 14th Law Commission Report—concluding that such a procedural change would be ineffective as defenses were rarely filed at the first hearing. At that time, the Commission observed that filing a Written Statement was not strictly compulsory under the Code; however, it recommended clarifying the legal consequences of non-compliance to ensure Courts possessed the power to act against defaulting defendants. This recommendation was fundamentally implemented through the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976, which strengthened Order VIII Rule 10 to allow Courts to pronounce judgment immediately for non-filing. While the 2002 Amendment later sought to make the 30-to-90-day window mandatory, the Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku[3], balanced this by holding that the provision is directory rather than mandatory, permitting extensions in exceptional cases provided that reasons are recorded in writing.

Legal Provisions

Pleading of new facts

Order VIII, Rule 2 of the CPC mandates that a defendant must explicitly raise all matters in their Written Statement that show the suit is not maintainable[4]  or that a transaction is void or voidable. The fundamental legal objective is to prevent the plaintiff from being taken by surprise by new grounds of defense or facts that do not arise naturally from the plaint.[5]  If a defendant fails to specifically plead these material facts, they are legally deemed to have waived these defenses and cannot raise them later during the trial or appeal.[6]

However, certain exceptions exist where the court must act even without a specific plea. If a transaction is ex facie illegal, or if the suit is barred by time under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the court is bound to dismiss the claim regardless of whether the defendant raised these points in the Written Statement.[7]  Conversely, while most factual defenses are lost if not pleaded, fundamental jurisdictional defects may sometimes be argued at the hearing.[8]  

Denial of facts

Denial to be specific (Order VIII Rule 3)

The fundamental mandate of Rule 3 is that a defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint; a general denial is legally insufficient.[9]  The rule requires the defendant to address every factual averment individually, either admitting it, denying it, or expressly stating that it is not admitted, thereby putting the plaintiff to proof.[10]  The only exception to this requirement is the allegation regarding the quantum of damages, which does not require a specific denial.[11]

Evasive Denial (Order VIII Rule 4)

Rule 4 prohibits evasive denials and demands that the defendant answer the point of substance.[12]  A denial that denies an allegation by only denying a minor detail is defective because it denies the literal details, such as the specific time, place, or amount, without denying the substantive fact itself.[13]  To comply with this rule, the defendant must deny the essential fact unequivocally and, if applicable, state the actual facts to remove ambiguity.

Specific Denial (Order VIII Rule 5)

Rule 5 stipulates that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication as required by Rules 3 and 4, shall be deemed to be admitted by the defendant.[14]  While this allows the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of such admissions without further evidence,[15] the rule provides a discretionary safeguard that the court may still require the plaintiff to prove any such admitted fact, particularly in cases involving persons under disability.

Set off

Order VIII Rule 6 empowers a defendant in a money suit to claim a set-off against the plaintiff’s demand, effectively transforming the defense into a cross-suit.  To invoke this statutory right, the defendant must satisfy specific conditions:

  • The claim must be for an ascertained sum of money;[16]
  • It must be legally recoverable;
  • It must fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court;[17] and
  • Both parties must fill the same legal character as they do in the plaintiff's suit.[18]

The procedural effect of pleading a set-off is that the Written Statement acquires the status of a plaint in a cross-suit. This enables the court to adjudicate both the original claim and the counter-demand simultaneously and pronounce a single final judgment. Depending on the amounts established, this judgment may result in the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, a reduced decree for the plaintiff, or even a decree in favor of the defendant for the surplus amount.   

Mandatory or Directory

Statutorily, Order VIII Rule 1 prescribes a strict 30-day timeline, extendable to 90 days, for filing a Written Statement.  On a literal reading, the negative language suggests the court loses jurisdiction to accept filings beyond this period. However, as established in Kailash v. Nanhku[3], the judiciary has definitively interpreted this provision as directory rather than mandatory.[19] The reasoning is that the CPC is procedural law, intended to be the handmaid of justice, not its mistress. Since the statute does not explicitly prescribe penal consequences for non-compliance, the legislature did not intend to completely strip courts of their inherent power to extend time when necessary to meet the ends of justice.

Historically, courts emphasized that extensions beyond the 90-day limit were permissible only in exceptional circumstances entirely beyond the defendant's control.[20]  However, the current judicial approach has evolved to be more flexible. The courts now hold that while the timeline must be respected to curb delay tactics, it is not an absolute embargo. A central tenet of this modern view is that the delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs, but denying the benefit of filing the written statement is unreasonable.[21]  The fundamental reasoning behind this flexibility is that the objective of the timeline is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle it.[19]  Consequently, courts are now more inclined to condone delays, subject to heavy costs as a deterrent, rather than shutting the door on a defendant, provided there is no gross negligence.

A distinct and strict exception to the general rule has been carved out for disputes governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Unlike ordinary civil suits, the Supreme Court has firmly established that the timeline for filing a Written Statement in commercial matters is mandatory.[22]  In these cases, the law prescribes a hard limit, specifically 120 days, beyond which the defendant’s right to file is automatically forfeited.[23]  This distinction was reiterated by the Supreme Court, which clarified that the mandatory rigour applies strictly to commercial suits, while non-commercial suits remain under the directory regime of Kailash.[24]

Amendment of a Written Statement

Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC provides the specific mechanism for the amendment of pleadings, including the Written Statement.  While this provision allows parties to alter or amend their pleadings to determine the real questions in controversy, the proviso strictly limits this right once the trial has commenced, requiring the court to be satisfied that the amendment could not have been raised earlier despite due diligence. However, it is crucial to note that the Code contains no provision for cancelling or setting aside a Written Statement already filed and substituting it with a fresh one. Such a course of action is legally impermissible, as the statutory framework only authorizes specific amendments, not total substitution. [25]

Consequences of Not Filing a Written Statement

Order VIII, Rule 10 of the CPC mandates that the court shall pronounce judgment against the defendant or make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.  Once this timeline expires and the right to file the statement is forfeited, the defendant effectively loses the right to set up a positive defense. Crucially, the law prohibits a party from bypassing this forfeiture by attempting to introduce their case indirectly through evidence or written submissions at a later stage; it is a settled principle that no evidence can be led on facts that have not been specifically pleaded.[26]  However, the forfeiture of this right does not result in the total expulsion of the defendant from the proceedings. The defendant retains the limited right to participate in the trial and cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses,[27] provided they do not use this opportunity to introduce their own factual defense which they failed to plead in the first place.[28]

Case Laws

Kailash v. Nanhku[3]

In this landmark judgment, the supreme court held that the timeline for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is directory and not mandatory, despite the negative language used in the provision. Even after the 90-day limit prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1, the Court is not powerless to accept a written statement if it deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice. It aims to ensure speedy disposal but does not create an absolute bar.

Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad[29]

In this recent clarification of procedural law, the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s failure to file a written statement does not automatically mandate a judgment against them, as the Court must exercise its power under Order VIII Rule 10 with care, caution, and circumspection. The ruling emphasizes that Rule 10 provides two distinct alternatives: the Court may either pronounce judgment or pass such other order as it deems fit. Reaffirming the principles in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan[30], the Court noted that if the plaint involves disputed questions of fact, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove their case through evidence rather than relying solely on the absence of a defense. Ultimately, the power to pronounce judgment for a procedural default is discretionary and should only be invoked when the facts are so clear that no further proof is required, thereby avoiding the risk of inconsistent or contradictory decrees in suits involving multiple parties.

Desh Raj v. Balkishan[31]

In this judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the divergence in procedural rigor between ordinary civil suits and commercial disputes. The Court held that for non-commercial suits, the timelines prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC remain directory rather than mandatory. This reinforces the principle that while procedural rules aim to expedite trials, they should not be used to penalize a defendant so harshly as to deny them a defense in ordinary litigation. Consequently, the Court retains its discretionary power to condone delays beyond the 90-day period in non-commercial matters, a sharp contrast to the strict regime of the Commercial Courts Act, where the 120-day limit is an absolute cutoff that cannot be extended.

Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Sumit Srimal[32]

The Madras High Court clarified that while the timeline for filing a Written Statement in civil suits may be directory, an extension beyond the initial 30 days is not automatic and cannot be granted by the Court suo motu during routine adjournments. An oral request is insufficient, as the defendant must provide a proper explanation and good reasons in writing to invoke the Court’s discretionary power. Consequently, any Written Statement filed after the 30-day mark can only be legally accepted if accompanied by a written prayer for condonation. Under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, the Court is mandated to record reasons for permitting a belated filing.

International Experience   

United States

In the United States, the equivalent of a Written Statement is termed an "Answer," governed principally by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Rule 8(b) mandates that a defendant must admit or deny the allegations asserted in the complaint.  Similar to the Indian requirement for specific denial, a general denial is discouraged; the defendant must fairly respond to the substance of each allegation. Furthermore, Rule 8(c) requires the defendant to affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defenses, such as estoppel, res judicata, or the statute of limitations, in the Answer itself.  Failure to plead these affirmative defenses typically results in their waiver, barring the defendant from raising them later in the trial.[33]

United Kingdom (England & Wales)

In the United Kingdom (England & Wales), the defense pleading is simply called a "Defence," regulated under Part 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules.  Rule 16.5 sets strictly defined parameters for traversing claims: the defendant must state which allegations they deny, which they admit, and which they are unable to admit or deny but require the claimant to prove.  A crucial similarity to the Indian system is the consequence of silence; under Rule 16.5(5), if a defendant fails to deal with an allegation, they are generally deemed to have admitted that specific allegation. This mirrors the proviso in Order VIII, Rule 5 of the CPC, where silence or a failure to specifically deny a fact results in a constructive admission of that allegation.   


  1. ↑ Food Corporation of India & Anr v. Yadav Engineer & Contractor AIR 1982 SC 1302.
  2. ↑ SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480
  4. ↑ Jalal Mohd. v. Kakka Mohd., AIR 1972 Mad 86.
  5. ↑ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Or. VIII, r. 2 (India).
  6. ↑ Jagneshwar Nath v. Jatra Mohan Sarkar, AIR 1980 Gau 23.
  7. ↑ Surasaibalini Debi v. Phanindra Mohan, AIR 1965 SC 1364.
  8. ↑ Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Wool Spinning Mills Ltd. v. G. Mahanandi & Co. Wool Merchants, AIR 2003 AP 418.
  9. ↑ Amir Beg v. Ghulam Nabi, 39 IC 330 : (1917) Punj Rec No 1.
  10. ↑ Pitamber Mohapatra v. Lakshmidhar Mohapatra, AIR 1949 Ori 64.
  11. ↑ J.B. Ross & Co. v. C.R. Scriven, 1916 SCC OnLine Cal 69.
  12. ↑ Ramchandra Jamnadas Katariya v. Nuruddinbhai, 2004 SCC OnLine Bom 754.
  13. ↑ Thorp v. Holdsworth, (1876) 3 CD 637; Tildesley v. Harper, (1878) 10 CD 393.
  14. ↑ Chiranjilal Agarwal v. Rikhabdas, 1958 SCC OnLine Raj 66.
  15. ↑ Kamlesh Kohli v. Anor V. Escotrac Finance and Investment Ltd., (2000) 1 LRI 767.
  16. ↑ State Bank of India v. Bihar Central Trading Company (Industrial Division), Singhbhum, 2004 SCC OnLine Jhar 451.
  17. ↑ Cofex Exports Ltd. v. Canara Bank, (1998) 92 Comp Cas 583.
  18. ↑ illustration (a), (b) and (h) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Or. VIII, r. 6 (India).
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480.
  20. ↑ Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344.
  21. ↑ Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 613.
  22. ↑ SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210.
  23. ↑ Desh Raj v. Balkishan, (2020) 2 SCC 708.
  24. ↑ Shoraj Singh vs. Charan Singh, LL 2021 SC 573.
  25. ↑ Thakarbhai Haribhai Patel v. Shree Dakshin Gujarat Ahir Samaj Seva Sangh, AIR 2009 Guj 155.
  26. ↑ Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel v. S.J.R. Prime Corpn. (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3636
  27. ↑ Nanda Dulal Pradhan v. Dibakar Pradhan, (2024) 12 SCC 155
  28. ↑ Nalini Sunder v. G.V. Sunder, 2002 SCC OnLine Kar 511
  29. ↑ Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, (2024) 4 SCC 696
  30. ↑ Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396
  31. ↑ Desh Raj v. Balkishan, (2020) 2 SCC 708
  32. ↑ Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Sumit Srimal, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 4785.
  33. ↑ Fossella v Dinkins, 66 NY2d 162 [1985].
Retrieved from "https://www.lawandjusticewiki.org/w/index.php?title=Written_Statement&oldid=11930"