The term written statement specifically describes a reply to the plaint filed by the defendant, and the written statement has no statutory definition. But the written statement must comply with the provision of Order VI (pleading) and Order VIII (Written Statement) of CPC, 1908. Under the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 to 5, the facts said by the plaintiff are either to be admitted or to be denied and new facts can also be stated in the written statement.

Who May File A Written Statement?

The written statement may be filed by the defendant or by his duly constituted agent If there are several defendants a joint written statement can be filed by them. All defendants must sign the written statement. If only one defendant signed it then it does not affect the other defendant. The verification can be done by anyone. But the original signature according to Order VI Rule 14 i.e. all defendants' signatures should be there. The defendant for any reason, not filing a written statement by himself, in that case, the defendant may file a written statement through an agent under (Order 3, in such case the agent can also sign. (who will sign as representative).

Provisions That Are Connected Along With The Written Statement Under Order Viii Cpc, 1908:

The provision under ORDER VI i.e. pleading. The pleading is defined under rule 1 of Order VI, which says the pleading means plaint and written statement and certain rules of Order VI are relevant while considering Order VIII those rules are R2, R4, R6-8 and R13 of CPC. The written statement should comply with the general rules of pleading.

Provision Under Order Viii Cpc, 1908:

Order Viii Rule 1:

Rule 1 was amended by the CPC Amendment Act, of 1999, as we all know the civil procedure code underwent major amendments in 1976, 1999, and 2002. Before we understand the said rule it is important to know what was the position before 1999 and what object the parliament wanted to achieve through the CPC Amendment Act, of 1999, in many cases, the parliament noticed that the cases were being protracted without the written statement being filed for years. The court was found liberal in granting time to file a written statement. So, it was regarded by the parliament that there must be a restriction on filing written statements beyond a certain period. So these provisions were introduced for speedy disposal of the matter before the court. i.e.

Under order viii rule 1, the defendant shall within 30 days from the service of summons upon him present a written statement for his defense. In the 1999 amendment, the maximum period provided was 30 days from the date of service of summons. But after the objections from BCI and state bar councils, a proviso was introduced to rule 1 of order viii in the CPC Amendment Act, 2002.

As per the proviso if the defendant fails to file the statement within 30 days from the date of service of summon. The court can extend the period for filing the written statement. For which reasons to be recorded in writing by the court, i.e. why the court is granting time to file a written statement, but the period shall not be more than 90 days from the date of service of summon.

Therefore, currently as per proviso of Rule 1 Order VIII, Defendant must file the written statement within 120 days from the date of service of summons. Upon expiration of said period, the Defendant's right to file the written statement shall be forfeited, and the court shall not allow such statement to be taken on record.

Now here arises the question of whether the maximum period is fixed, and what will happen if the written statement is not filed within the maximum period i.e. 120 days. In cases where the defendant is unable to file the same for a reason beyond his control.

Illustration:
'A' the defendant while going to the court to file a written statement, but met with an accident because of which the defendant was in Hospital for 4 months, what in this situation the defendant will do as he is affected by serious illness, for this question we have to find answer in rule 10 of order viii and some of the judicial pronouncement.

Order Viii Rule 10:

Procedure When A Party Fails To Present A Written Statement Called For By The Court: There are two aspects to this rule. One is a written statement as per order viii rule 1 another aspect is a written statement required by the court and which is mentioned in rule 9 of order viii.

Rule 10 says any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 & rule 9 if that party fails to present it within the period permitted or fixed by the court and as the case may be. The court shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and a decree shall be drawn after the pronouncement of such judgment.

So this aspect of the rule faced criticism that simply, because the defendant/party has not filed the written statement within the maximum period of 90 days, will not automatically result in passing a decree in favor of the plaintiff and depriving the defendant of all his rights, which results in violation principle of natural justice.

This aspect was considered in Salem Advocates Bar Association, TN Vs Union of India, which is commonly known as the Salem 2 case. In paras 14 to 21 of the judgment the Hon'ble supreme court has dealt the same.

Under para 14 of the judgment, the Supreme Court posed a question of whether the provision of 90 days is mandatory and therefore the court is altogether powerless to the extent of the time even if in an exceptionally hard case.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held the following decision:

• The use of the word shall in rule 1 order viii is not conclusive to determine whether the provision is mandatory or directory. Here the intention of the legislature is to be taken into consideration i.e. The rule in question is to advance the cause of justice not be defeated. So, the same can be construed as directory.
   
• The apex court held that in construing provision of order viii rule 1 and rule 10 the doctrine of harmonies construction is required to be applied. The effect would be that under rule 10 the court would have discretion/power to allow the defendant to file a written statement even after the expiry of 90 days as provided under order viii rule 1. And under rule 10 there is no restriction that on expiry of 90 days' further time cannot be granted. The court has wide powers to make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.

So, it is clear from the decision that the upper limit provided under order viii rule 1 is directory. But it is important to note that the extension can't be done as a routine and reasons must be recorded. Here it is important to note that there must be reasonable cause for that delay which is beyond the control of the party.

In the case of Kailash V. Nanhku 2005, the case was regarding whether the court can consider accepting a written statement after 90 days, in this case, it was held that the court should take a liberal view if the cause is sufficient to adjourn the court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, through a series of judgments, has elucidated the application and interpretation of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly concerning the time limit for filing written statements in commercial and non-commercial suits.

In "SCG Contracts Indian Pvt. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.," the Court held that the proviso to Order VIII is to be mandatorily applied in commercial suits. Consequently, no written statement shall be taken on record after the expiration of 120 days from the date of service of summons in such cases.

This principle was reaffirmed in "Desh Raj v. Bal Kishan," wherein the Court provided further clarification. It was observed that while the aforementioned time schedule is mandatory for commercial suits, it shall be construed as directory in nature for non-commercial suits.

The Apex Court stance was further crystallized in "Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra." Herein, the Court unequivocally stated that the 120-day time limit prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing written statements is mandatory solely for commercial suits. In non-commercial matters, this provision is to be interpreted as directory.

Furthermore, in "Bharat Kalra," the Court opined that while delays in filing written statements in non-commercial suits may be subject to costs as compensation, an outright denial of the right to file a written statement based on a strict interpretation of the provision would be unreasonable. This approach strikes a balance between procedural efficiency and the interests of justice.

Order Viii Rule 1a:

The Duty Of The Defendant To Produce Documents Upon Which The Relief Is Claimed Or Relied Upon By The Defendant:

Rule 1A was inserted through the CPC Amendment Act, of 1999. The rule 1A says:

• The defendant for his defense relied on or relies on a document that is in his power or possession. Then the defendant has to enter such documents in a list and produce it to court and at the same time hand over a copy to the plaintiff.
• If in case where the document is not in the power & possession of the defendant, the defendant shall state with whom it is with.
• If a document which is ought to be produced by the defendant under this rule is not produced, then without the leave of the court, it can't be received as evidence on his behalf.
• Nothing in this rule applies to the documents produced for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness or the kind of document handed over to the witness which is used for refreshing his memory. This provision of the rule 1A can be explained with an example:

Illustration:
'A' and 'B' are parties to a suit. 'A' is the plaintiff and 'B' is the defendant. at the time when the plaintiff and his witness are being examined. 'B' has taken appropriate contention in the written statement but documents with regard to the contention are not produced in the court because the 'B' thinks that the document is of such a kind that can't be denied by the plaintiff's witness at the time of cross-examination. So such documents are excluded from the preview of rule 1A of order viii.

Order Viii Rule 2:
New Facts Must Be Specifically Pleaded:
The defendant while preparing a draft of a written statement. The defendant must state all the matters to show that the suit is not maintainable or the transaction in the suit is void or voidable in the point of law. To mention all such grounds of defense if not mentioned would likely to take the opposite party by surprise. The defendants would raise issues or facts not arising out of the plaint. For instance, fraud, limitation, release, payment, performance, or facts showing illegality.

Here it is important with respect to fraud, if a defendant alleges fraud in his contention, sufficient material should be in the written statement, and supporting evidence must be there. It is a well-settled principle by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that fraud must be proved like an offense in a criminal charge. Whatever the circumstance may be that is not a substitute for proof.

It is also vital to note: the meaning of the phrase in this rule, 'To mention all such grounds of defense if not mentioned would likely to take the opposite party by surprise' it can be understood by understanding the importance of pleading: if a particular contention is not raised in a pleading what will happen? From privy council to the Hon'ble Supreme court up to date maintained the view that no amount of evidence can be looked into. If there is no sufficient pleading to support that evidence.

The principle here being the Audi Alteram Partem "opposite party should not be put to surprise" It is stressed by the Supreme Court because there may be cases where the defendant does not mention anything in his written statement and at the time of trial the defendant dumped in all evidence whereby the plaintiff is put to surprise as the plaintiff not left with any evidence. This is applicable to plaint also.

Order Viii Rule 3 & 4:
For better understanding, we have considered both the rules together:

• Rule 3: Denial To Be Specific: It shall not be sufficient for the defendant to deny generally. The grounds alleged by the plaintiff must be denied specifically.
• Rule 4: Evasive Denial: When a defendant denies an allegation or facts. The nature of the denial must not to be so evasive rather the defendant should answer the point of substance. For instance, if the defendant has alleged that he has received a certain sum of money. It shall not be sufficient to deny that 'this much amount at this place and time was received by me is not correct'. But the defendant's denial must contain received 'that sum' or any part thereof or else set out how much he received. Basically, a denial must be specific.

What will happen if there is an evasive denial?

The court will take evasive denial as admission. If it is taken as an admission the consequences could be that the admitted facts need not be proved as it is taken as admission is an element of proof in these situations the suit may go in favor of the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Sharma (dead) through LRS V. Union of India and others. dealt with evasive denial in its decision:
It was a case where the appellant pleaded that he could not join the duty at the place of transfer. Since he has not been given a relieving order yet and railway passes. The Respondent, simply replied that there was no material on record to show that passes etc. we're not issued to the Appellant (petitioner).

It was held by the court that the plea was not positively denied and thus amounted to the deemed admission of the averment in the pleadings of the opposite party. If the plea had been denied specifically it could not have amounted to deemed admission. So, thus how the importance of specific denial can be understood.

Order Viii Rule 5: Specific Denial:
According to this rule, all facts in a plaint are considered to be admitted if not specifically denied or stated as 'not admitted' in a written statement.

• Exception: This doesn't apply to persons with disabilities.
• The court may require proof of admitted facts at its discretion.

In case the defendant doesn't file a pleading, the court can pronounce a judgment based upon the plaintiff's facts.

• The court may require proof of these facts at its discretion.

Order Viii Rule 6: Set-Offs:

What is a Set-off?
A set-off is a tool that defendants can use in civil suits for the recovery of money. It allows the defendant to reduce the amount they might have to pay by showing that the plaintiff actually owes money to the defendant too.

When Can Set-off be used?

• The plaintiff owes the defendant a specific amount of money.
• The defendants have a legal right to get that money.
• The amount doesn't exceed the Pecuniary limit of the Jurisdiction of the court.

Purpose of the set-off:

• Avoid multiplicity of proceedings, regarding the same issue.
• Enable The Court to make final determination of disputes on all recovery of money matters between the two parties.
• Save time and legal costs for everyone involved.

Important rules pertaining to set-offs:

• Both parties must have the same roles in the set-off as in the main case.
• The set-off must be about the same transaction or be closely related to the main case.
• Defendants need to ask for a set-off when they first respond to the suit.

Types of Set-offs:

• Statutory Set-off (Order VIII Rule 6 CPC): Filed with a written statement.
• Equitable Set-off:
  • Considered by the court as a matter of equity, even if not formally pleaded.
  • Must flow from the same transaction or be of the same character.

Effect of Set-off Claim:

• Equivalent to a plaint in a cross-suit against the plaintiff.
• Serves as a "shield" for defendant to adjust liability.

Order VIII Rule 6A to 6G: Counterclaim: What is a Counterclaim? A counterclaim is a more powerful tool for defendants. It allows the defendants to make their own claims against the plaintiff in the same suit. Key Features of Counterclaims:

• The counterclaims can be about issues that arose before or after the filing of Plaint.
• Must be filed before the deadline for filing the written statement.
• Can continue even if the plaintiff's case is dismissed or put on hold.
• Should be filed as soon as possible, or the court might not allow it.
• The Plaintiff can apply for a separate trial for the counterclaim (Order VIII Rule 6C).

Order VIII Rule 9: Subsequent Pleadings: Replications and Rejoinders: According to this rule, no pleadings after the defendant's written statement are allowed without court permission, except for defending against set-offs or counter-claims. The court can require additional written statements from any party within 30 days. After the Plaint and the defendant's response, i.e. the "written statement", the court might allow additional written statements to be filed. These are called Subsequent Pleadings, i.e.- Replications:

• Filed by the plaintiff in response to new facts or grounds raised in the defendant's written statement.
• The court must grant permission for this.
• The court will not allow replications that:
  • Put forth inconsistent pleas.
  • Alter the foundation of the case.
  • Raise entirely new claims.
  • Merely deny the defendant's averments.

Rejoinders:

• The defendant's response to the plaintiff's replication.
• Also requires the court's permission.

Rules for Additional Pleadings:

• Should only address new information which has been covered in earlier pleadings.
• The Plaintiff can't use an additional pleading to deny things already said in the written statement (the law assumes that the plaintiff disagrees with the defendant's claims unless stated otherwise).
• The court has the discretion of whether to allow these additional pleadings.

Conclusion:
In light of the foregoing exposition, it is evident that the written statement, as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a crucial instrument in civil litigation, serving as the defendant's primary means of response to the plaintiff's claims. The legislative intent, as manifested through various amendments and elucidated by judicial pronouncements, emphasizes the dual objectives of ensuring procedural fairness and expeditious disposal of cases.

The courts, in their wisdom, have adopted a nuanced approach to the interpretation of the provisions governing written statements, particularly concerning time limits. While maintaining the sanctity of procedural rules, they have also preserved the courts' discretionary powers to further the ends of justice in exceptional circumstances.

The distinction drawn between commercial and non-commercial suits vis-à-vis the mandatory nature of time limits reflects a pragmatic approach, balancing the need for swift resolution of commercial disputes with the broader considerations of justice in other civil matters.

Furthermore, the provisions relating to set-offs and counterclaims underscore the legislative intent to promote comprehensive dispute resolution within a single proceeding, thereby avoiding a multiplicity of suits.

In conclusion, while the procedural framework for written statements is designed to ensure the orderly conduct of civil proceedings, the courts retain the authority to interpret and apply these rules in a manner that advances the cause of justice. It is incumbent upon legal practitioners to meticulously adhere to these provisions while remaining cognizant of the judicial discretion that may be exercised in exceptional circumstances.

References:

1. Civil Procedure Code by C.K Takwani.
2. Salem Advocates Bar Association, TN Vs Union of India Writ Petition (civil) 496 of 2002.
3. Kailash V. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480.
4. SCG Contracts Indian Pvt. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 3788 of 2022 (SLP (C) No.63 of 2022).
5. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5fe1e84f-92de-4ece-9d60-1d6dc8048e46
6. Desh Raj v. Bal Kishan 2020 SCC Online SC 49.
7. Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra Civil Appeal No. 3788 of 2022 (SLP (C) No.63 of 2022).
8. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a8496416-914a-47f0-9562-5356a85bec7f
9. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/11087/1/the_code_of_civil_procedure%2C_1908.pdf
10. Raj Bahadur Sharma (dead) through LRS V. Union of India and others 1998 9 SCC 458.
11. https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/written-statement-must-have-para-wise-reply-to-plaint-allegations-deemed-to-be-admitted-unless-specifically-denied-supreme-court-251305
12. https://www.barandbench.com/columns/advocates-diary-essentials-of-a-civil-suit-counter-claims-set-offs-rejoinders-and-the-discretion-of-additional-pleadings
13. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e7106a92-638f-4b69-ac41-efc87e5adbe6
14. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-should-kept-mind-while-drafting-written-statement-dhaval-vyas/
15. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=49f0a6b4-0e10-4e85-a92a-48b45f5c9e8e