An Analysis of Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The Doctrine of Deemed Admission and Judicial Discretion

Introduction

Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a cornerstone provision governing pleadings in civil suits in India. It embodies the principle that allegations of fact in the plaint, if not specifically denied or denied by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken as admitted. This rule aims to narrow down the scope of dispute between parties, expedite trial by obviating the need to prove uncontroverted facts, and ensure that defendants address specifically the case put forth by the plaintiff. This article seeks to analyze the nuances of Order VIII Rule 5, its implications, the judicial discretion vested in courts, and its interpretation through various landmark judgments of Indian courts.

The Core Principle: Specific Denial and Deemed Admission (Order VIII Rule 5(1))

Order VIII Rule 5(1) of the CPC mandates:

"Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission."

This provision must be read in conjunction with Order VIII Rule 3, which requires that the denial by the defendant must be specific, and Order VIII Rule 4, which cautions against evasive denials. A general denial or a vague statement of non-admission is insufficient to counter the plaintiff's factual assertions.

The Supreme Court in Badat and Co. Bombay v. East India Trading Co. (AIR 1964 SC 538) emphasized the necessity for defendants to categorically deny each allegation in the plaint, failing which such failure amounts to an admission. This principle was reiterated in Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar ((2003) 8 SCC 673), where the Court highlighted the obligations under Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 regarding admissions and denials, holding that vague denials could constitute admissions. The Court noted, "Referring to Order 8 Rules 3 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held that the respondent's vague denial of familial relationships and age-related statements constituted admissions."

Similarly, in Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam v. Atmaram Kumar ((1993) 4 SCC 6), the Supreme Court affirmed that the defendant's failure to traverse the allegations in the written statement constitutes an implied admission. The Court observed, "Based on Rule 3 of Order 8, the defendant is required to specifically address each allegation of fact that he does not admit. Rule 5 states that any allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied in the written statement, shall be deemed admitted by the defendant." This was also the finding in Mandi Rojashri v. The Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2025, citing Lohia Properties).

The Madras High Court in Marie Louise v. Marie Bernadette (2009 SCC ONLINE MAD 1875) held that if there is no specific denial in the written statement, it tantamounts to an admission, and a general denial is not sufficient. This was echoed in Thirugnanasambandam v. Kannan & Others (2018 MHC 5909, Madras High Court), where it was stated, "As per Order VIII Rule 5 of CPC, every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted..." The Orissa High Court in Harihar Rajguru Mohapatra And Another v. Nabakishore Pajaguru Mohapatra And Others (1962 SCC ONLINE ORI 44) also directly applied Order VIII Rule 5 to hold that unambiguous acceptance of a plaintiff's assertion in the written statement stands as a strong piece of admission.

In Jaspal Kaur Cheema And Another v. Industrial Trade Links And Others ((2017) 8 SCC 592), the Supreme Court reinforced this, noting that a "general denial without specific denial was insufficient and amounted to an admission of the appellants' ownership." The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, in VRAND DOVLOPERS v. PATEL DASHARATHBHAI GORDHANBHAI (2023), also applied this principle, stating that when a fact is not clearly denied in the reply, there is reason to believe that the fact is implicitly true, referencing Order 8 Rule 3 and Rule 5.

The Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5(1): Judicial Discretion

The proviso to Order VIII Rule 5(1) grants the court discretionary power to require any fact, though deemed admitted, to be proved otherwise than by such admission. This is a crucial safeguard to prevent injustice, particularly where a plaint may be collusive, fraudulent, or where the defendant, due to ignorance or other reasons, fails to file a proper denial, or where the court itself feels that proof is necessary in the interest of justice.

The Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja And Another v. Sunil Madan And Another ((1999) 8 SCC 396) extensively discussed the court's role, particularly in cases where a written statement is not filed (which leads to deemed admissions under Order VIII Rule 5 or Rule 10). The Court cautioned that "in a case, specially where a written statement has not been filed by the defendant the Court should be a little cautious in proceeding under Order 8, Rule 10, C.P.C. Before passing the judgment against the defendant it must see to it that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted a judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint. It is a matter of the Court's satisfaction..." This underscores that deemed admission is not an automatic gateway to a decree; the court must apply its mind to the facts and circumstances.

This sentiment was echoed by the Allahabad High Court in Dr. Nanda Agrawal Revisionist v. Matri Mandir, Varanasi And Anr. (AIR 2004 All 275, citing Balraj Taneja), emphasizing judicial caution. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Small Industries Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Padma Textiles By Its Proprietor (2007 SCC ONLINE KAR 201) held that Order VIII Rule 5 is a directory provision and not mandatory, and the court cannot act blindly even if a written statement is not filed. The court must satisfy itself subjectively before passing a judgment based on deemed admissions.

Application in Absence of Written Statement (Order VIII Rule 5(2) and Order VIII Rule 10)

Order VIII Rule 5(2) states that where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved. This provision, along with Order VIII Rule 10 (Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court), deals with situations where the defendant defaults in pleading.

Even in such scenarios, the principles laid down in Balraj Taneja (supra) regarding judicial scrutiny remain paramount. The court is not bound to pass a decree merely because a written statement has not been filed. It must examine the plaint and satisfy itself that a case is made out. As seen in ROHIT MALHOTRA v. GURVINDER SINGH TOOR (Delhi High Court, 2024), while the plaintiff may argue for a decree based on deemed admission due to non-filing of the written statement, the court's discretion under the proviso and sub-rule (2) remains.

The Karnataka High Court in SRI N MOHAN v. SMT. RUKMINI (2023) noted the proposition that if a defendant does not deny allegations, they are taken as admitted under Order VIII Rule 5, and the suit could be decreed, irrespective of whether a written statement was filed or not, but this must be read subject to the court's overriding discretion.

Nature and Scope of "Admission" under Order VIII Rule 5

Admissions, whether expressly made or deemed under Order VIII Rule 5, have significant evidentiary value and can form the basis of a judgment. Once an admission is made, it is generally binding on the party making it, and they are not permitted to resile from it without proper justification and leave of the court. In Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. And Another v. Ladha Ram & Co. ((1976) 4 SCC 320), the Supreme Court dealt with an application for amendment of a written statement seeking to withdraw an admission. The Court held that such an amendment, which would displace the plaintiff completely from admissions made by the defendants, should not be allowed, highlighting the binding nature of admissions in pleadings.

The Delhi High Court in Mohan Madan v. Sheel Gulati (2015 SCC ONLINE DEL 11507) discussed the concept of deemed admission in the context of non-filing of a replication to facts pleaded in the written statement, invoking Order VIII Rule 9 read with Order VIII Rule 5 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC. This illustrates the broader application of the principle of deemed admission arising from failures in pleading.

It is important to distinguish deemed admissions under Order VIII Rule 5 from admissions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, though they are related. Pleadings are not evidence per se, but admissions in pleadings are admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, which states that facts admitted need not be proved. However, the proviso to Section 58, much like the proviso to Order VIII Rule 5(1), empowers the court to require facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.

Exceptions to Deemed Admission

Order VIII Rule 5 itself carves out an exception for "a person under disability" (e.g., a minor or a person of unsound mind). Allegations of fact against such persons cannot be taken as admitted merely due to non-denial; they must be proved by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, it is a well-settled principle that there can be no deemed admission of allegations of law. Parties can only admit facts. Legal propositions or conclusions of law stated in the plaint, even if not denied, do not stand admitted and are for the court to determine.

Additionally, claims for damages are generally required to be proved by the plaintiff even if not specifically denied by the defendant. Order VIII Rule 3 itself states that a denial must be specific, "except damages." While Rule 5 does not explicitly mention damages, the underlying principle is that the quantum of damages is a matter for the court to assess based on evidence, not merely on the absence of denial.

Conclusion

Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, plays a vital role in streamlining civil litigation by ensuring that parties address specific factual allegations, thereby crystallizing the actual points of contest. The rule of deemed admission for non-traversed facts acts as an effective tool to prevent undue prolongation of trials. However, the judicial discretion embedded in the proviso to Rule 5(1) and in sub-rule (2) serves as an essential check, empowering courts to demand proof even of admitted facts to ensure that justice is not sacrificed at the altar of procedural technicalities. The jurisprudence developed by Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court in cases like Badat and Co., Sushil Kumar, and Balraj Taneja, consistently emphasizes a balanced approach: while parties must adhere to pleading rules diligently, courts must exercise their discretion judiciously to uphold the principles of fair play and substantive justice.