Doctrine of Non Traversal under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC

The doctrine of non traversal, encapsulated under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), stands as a cornerstone in the landscape of Indian civil litigation. The doctrine asserts that any factual averment in a plaint, if not specifically denied by the defendant, is deemed admitted.

This principle of non traversal simplifies the litigation process by narrowing the issues that need adjudication, thus expediting the resolution of disputes. The rule ensures that the focus remains on contested issues rather than undisputed facts.

Meaning of Doctrine of Non Traversal under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC

The Doctrine of Non-Traversal under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that if a defendant does not specifically deny or deny by necessary implication any factual averment made in the plaint, such averment is deemed admitted. This doctrine ensures that all allegations of fact not explicitly contested are considered accepted, thereby streamlining the judicial process by focusing on genuinely disputed issues.

The rule mandates clear and specific denials in written statements to prevent defendants from evading liability through vague or general responses. This legal principle promotes judicial efficiency and clarity in civil litigation, ensuring that undisputed facts are not subjected to unnecessary proof.

Objective of Order VIII Rule 5

The primary objective of Order VIII Rule 5 is to streamline legal proceedings by reducing the number of issues that require trial. This is achieved by treating uncontested facts as admitted, thereby focusing judicial scrutiny on genuinely disputed matters. This rule aims to prevent defendants from evading or delaying the trial by not addressing the allegations specifically. It promotes judicial efficiency and ensures that parties are clear on the issues that need resolution.

In Food Corporation of India v. Municipal Committee, Jalalabad, the court held that unchallenged averments regarding property tax assessment, based on an agreed fair rent, could not later be contested on the grounds of unfairness. This case illustrates the rule’s role in fostering clarity and preventing unnecessary litigation.

Interrelation of Order VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5

Order VIII Rule 5 must be read in conjunction with Rules 3 and 4 of the CPC to understand its full implications:

• Rule 3: Requires the defendant to specifically deny each material fact alleged in the plaint.
• Rule 4: Stipulates that the denial should not be vague but specific and to the point.

In Smt. Asha Kapoor v. Sh. Hari Om Sharda, Justice V.B. Gupta of the Delhi High Court elucidated that the combined reading of these rules obligates the defendant to address each factual allegation specifically. Any material fact not specifically denied is deemed admitted under Rule 5. The Supreme Court in M. Venkataraman Hebbar v. M. Rajgopal Hebbar and others reinforced this doctrine of non traversal, stating that failure to traverse a pertinent plea allows the court to infer its admission.

Consequences of Rule 5 and Doctrine of Non Traversal

The doctrine of non traversal significantly impacts the plaintiff’s burden of proof. Allegations in the plaint not denied specifically or by necessary implication are considered admitted, relieving the plaintiff from proving such facts. For a denial to be effective, it must be clear, specific and unequivocal. General denials do not suffice, as highlighted in Tek Bahadur v. Debi Singh.

The case of Lohia Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Atmaram Kumar serves as a landmark decision where the court invoked Rule 5, concluding that the defendant’s implied admission justified passing a decree. This case underscores the importance of specific denials in a written statement to avoid unintended admissions.

Applicability of Doctrine of Non Traversal and Order VIII Rule 5 CPC

Order VIII Rule 5 is applicable to civil suits and execution proceedings but does not extend to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, which pertain to the powers of the High Courts. In such petitions, while the general principles of pleading and failure to traverse apply, the rule is not strictly enforced.

In Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati, the Supreme Court observed that courts generally do not decide divorce cases solely based on party admissions, emphasising the necessity of considering relevant legal provisions alongside Order VIII Rule 5.

Difference Between Non-Admission and Denial

Understanding the distinction between non-admission and denial is important:

• Denial: The defendant contends that a specific fact never occurred, necessitating the plaintiff to prove it.
• Non-Admission: The defendant requires the plaintiff to prove the fact without explicitly denying it.

Both non-admission and denial compel the plaintiff to substantiate the averments, but only a specific denial directly challenges the factual basis.

Question of Fact and Question of Law

A critical distinction in legal pleadings is between questions of fact and questions of law:

• Questions of Fact: Must be explicitly pleaded by the party raising them.
• Questions of Law: Do not require explicit pleading as the court applies the relevant law based on established facts.

In Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, the Supreme Court emphasised that even in the absence of a written statement, the court must scrutinise the facts to ascertain the correctness of granting a decree. This case highlights the court’s duty to differentiate between factual allegations and legal questions, applying the law appropriately.

English Law Perspective on Doctrine of Non Traversal

The doctrine of non traversal under English law is more stringent. In England, a failure to traverse an averment in the statement of claim precludes the defendant from contesting it at trial. However, in India, courts retain the discretion to require proof of such averments even if not specifically denied in the written statement. This flexibility allows Indian courts to seek justice based on the merits of each case, rather than rigid procedural compliance.

Conclusion

The doctrine of non traversal under Order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC is a vital principle ensuring judicial efficiency and clarity in civil litigation. By deeming uncontested facts as admitted, the rule narrows the issues for trial, focusing on genuinely disputed matters. The requirement for specific denial or non-admission in pleadings prevents defendants from evading liability through vague or general responses.

This doctrine reinforces the need for precise and clear pleadings, enabling courts to deliver justice efficiently. The interplay of Rules 3, 4 and 5, along with relevant case laws, underscores the doctrine’s significance in the Indian legal system. While English law adopts a stricter approach, the flexibility in Indian courts to require proof even for non-traversed averments ensures that justice prevails based on the merits of each case.

The doctrine of non traversal not only simplifies the litigation process but also upholds the principles of fairness and clarity, ensuring that the focus remains on resolving genuine disputes rather than procedural technicalities.