6.

4 Civil Procedure Code and Limitation

(Assignment Submission, in lieu of Semester End Examination)

Faculty in charge
Dr. S.C. Singh
(Professor of Law)

Submitted by-
Ujjwal Mani Tripathi
(SM0117059)
Third Year, Sixth Semester

National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam

15th October, 2020
 1. Discuss the principles of ‘res judicata’ and explain the necessary conditions to
constitute ‘res judicata’. How far ‘res judicata’ is different from ‘res sub judice’
and ‘estoppel’?

Answer: Res judicata literally means “a thing which has been decided”. Res means ‘thing’
and judicata means ‘already decided’. The doctrine operates as a 'bar to the trial of a
subsequent suit on the same cause of action between the same parties’. In other words,
"things once decided by competent courts should be taken as conclusive truths until they are
reversed by any higher court."

The doctrine is not merely a technical doctrine. It is a fundamental doctrine based on the
principle of conclusiveness of the judgment and the finality of litigation “One suit and one
decision are enough for any single dispute”. The doctrine has been accepted in all civilized
legal system.

The doctrine of res judicata is based on three theories:

1. The finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of
disputes in the general interest of community as a matter of public policy (Lal Chand
v Radha Krishan)
2. The interests of the individual that he should be protected from multiplication of
litigation. Thus, the doctrine is also founded on justice, equity and good conscience
(Lal Chand v Radha Krishan).
3. A judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

According to Sir Lawrence Jenkins, "the rule of res judicata, while founded on account of
precedent, is dictated by a wisdom which is for all times." But for this rule there would be no
end to litigation and no security for any person, the rights of persons would be involved in
endless confusion and great injustice done under the cover of law (Kunjan Nair v Narayanan
Nair).

The rule of res judicata is not a technical rule; it is a rule of public policy. It is well settled
that Sec. 11 is not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata. In Daryao v State of U.P,
the Supreme Court observed: "The rule of res judicata as indicated in Sec. 11 of the Code has
no doubt some technical aspects, for instance, the rule of constructive res judicata may be
said to be technical; but the basis on which the said rule rests is founded on consideration of
public policy." The principle is founded on justice, equity and good conscience. The binding
character of judgments pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction is itself an essential
part of the rule of law.

In Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v Union of India, it was observed that the
rule of res judicata is a universal doctrine laying down the finality of litigation between the
parties. When a particular decision has become final and binding between the parties, it
cannot be set at naught on the ground that such a decision is violative of Art. 14 (Equality
clause) of the Constitution.

Rule of res judicata would apply to all judicial proceedings whether civil (including
arbitration, taxation, and industrial adjudication) or criminal. It equally applies to all quasi-
judicial proceedings of the tribunals e.g. administrative orders (Sulochana Amma v Narayana
Nair. It also applies to interim orders.

The doctrine should be interpreted and applied liberally. In many decided cases, the rule of
res judicata has always been accepted as a plea of defence. The onus to prove that particular
issue raised in a subsequent suit is res judicata is always upon the defendant who takes the
plea.

The following conditions must be satisfied in order to constitute res judicata:

1. The matter must be directly and substantially in issue in the two suits. The matter
directly and substantially in issue in the latter suit must be the ‘same matter’. Matter
would be substantially and directly in issue if the issue was decided and the judgment
was, in fact based upon the decision. Thus, according to the case of Pandurang v
Shantibai a matter in respect of which no relief is claimed cannot become ‘directly
and substantially in issue’ even if a decree is passed by a competent court.
2. The second essential condition to constitute the bar of res judicata is that the former
suit must have been between the same parties or between parties under whom they or
any of them claim. Res judicata not only affects the parties to the suit but their privies
i.e. persons claiming under them. A judgment not inter partes or in rem is not res
judicata.
3. The third essential condition to constitute the bar of res judicata is that the parties
must have litigated under the same title in the former suit. Thus, a suit brought by a
 person to recover possession from a stranger of math property claiming it as heir of
the deceased mahant is no bar to a suit by him as manager of the math, if the first suit
is dismissed on his failure to produce the succession certificate for the two suits arise
under different capacities.
4. The fourth condition is that the court which decided the former suit must have been a
court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is
subsequently raised. “Competent to try” means competent to try the subsequent suit if
brought at the time the first suit was brought.
5. The last condition is that the matter directly and subsequently in issue in the
subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided notwithstanding that the
former suit was disposed of ex parte or dismissed for failure to produce evidence
when time was allowed to do so. There should be a final decision on which the court
has exercised it judicial mind. But it is necessary that the decision in the former suit
must have been on the merits and so the matter cannot be said to have been finally
decided when the former suit was dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction,
or for default of plaintiff’s appearance, etc.

Difference between Res judicata and Res sub-judice are as follows:

The rule of res judicata in Sec. 11 is clearly distinguishable from the rule of res sub-judice
enshrined in Sec. 10. The former relates to a matter already adjudicated upon, while the latter
relates to a matter which is pending judicial enquiry. The rule in Sec. 10 bars the trial of a suit
in which the matter directly and substantially in issue in pending judicial decision in a
previously instituted suit by staying the trial of the later suit; Sec. 11 bars altogether the trial
of a suit in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has already been adjudicated
upon in a previous suit.

Difference between Res judicata and Estoppel are as follows:

Res judicata stops the parties from proving the previous decision to be incorrect. Res judicata
corresponds to that part of the doctrine of estoppel which is known in English law as
'estoppel by record.' Thus, even though res judicata may be said to be included in the doctrine
of estoppel, it must be distinguished from estoppel.
(i) The rule of res judicata is based on public policy i.e. it is to the interest of the
State that there should be an end to litigation, Estoppel is part of the law of
 evidence and proceeds on the equitable principle of altered situation viz. that he
who, by his conduct, has induced another to alter his position to his disadvantage,
cannot turn round and take advantage of such alteration of the other's position.
(ii) Res judicata precludes a man from avowing the same thing in successive
litigations, while estoppel prevents a party from saying two contradictory things at
different times. Res judicata prohibits an inquiry in limine, and bars the trial of a
suit, while estoppel is only a piece of evidence and prohibits a party, after the
inquiry had already been entered upon, from proving which would contradict his
own previous declaration
(iii) Res judicata ousts the jurisdiction of the court to try the case, while estoppel shuts
the mouth of a party, being a rule of evidence.
(iv) The doctrine of res judicata results from a decision of the court, while estoppel
results from the facts of the parties themselves.
(v) The theory of res judicata is to presume conclusively the truth of the former
decision, while the rule of estoppel prevents a person from setting up what he calls
the truth.

Question 2: Discuss the concept of “Jurisdiction of Civil Court” under the Code of Civil
Procedure.

Answer: ‘Jurisdiction’ may be defined to be the power or authority of a court to hear and
determine a cause, to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it. In other
words, Jurisdiction means the authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated
before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision (Hriday
Nath v Ram Chandra). Thus, jurisdiction of a court means the extent of the authority of a
court to administer justice prescribed with reference to the subject matter, pecuniary value
and local limits.

If the court has no jurisdiction, consent of the parties or their inaction, cannot confer that
jurisdiction, nor by consent jurisdiction can be ousted. Where the court has jurisdiction to
decide a dispute, the same cannot be taken away or ousted by consent of parties. But if two or
more courts have jurisdiction to try the suit, it is open to the parties select a particular forum.
Such an agreement would be legal, valid and enforceable (Hakam Singh v Gammon).
If there is inherent lack of jurisdiction, the decree passed by a civil court is a nullity.
However, if the court has jurisdiction, but it is irregularly exercised, the defect does not go to
the root of the matter, and the error can be remedied in appeal, etc.

Whether a court has jurisdiction or not has to be decided with reference to the initial
assumption of jurisdiction by that court. The question is determinable "at the commencement,
not at the conclusion of the inquiry." Whenever the jurisdiction of the court is challenged, the
court has inherent jurisdiction to decide the said question. Every court or tribunal is not only
entitled but bound to determine whether the matter in which it is asked to exercise its
jurisdiction comes within its jurisdiction or not (M.S. Hasnuddin v State of Maharashtra).

The Supreme Court in Vankamamidi V. Subba Rao v Chatlapalli S. Ranganayakamma

observed that it is a settled legal position that if a Tribunal with limited jurisdiction cannot
assume jurisdiction and decide for itself the dispute conclusively, in such a situation, it is the
court that is required to decide whether the tribunal with limited jurisdiction has correctly
assumed jurisdiction and decided the dispute within its limits. It is also equally settled that
when jurisdiction is conferred on a tribunal, the courts examine whether the essential
principles of jurisdiction have been followed and decided by tribunals leaving the decision on
merits to the tribunals.
The jurisdiction of the court has to be decided on the allegations made by the plaintiff in the
plaint and not on the allegations made by the defendant in the written statement (Abdulla Bin
Ali v Galappa. Likewise, it is well established that in deciding the question of jurisdiction,
what is important is the substance of the matter and not the form.

Kinds of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction in a wide sense means the extent of the power of the court to entertain suits,
appeals and applications. It relates to the subject matter of the suitor application. For instance,
a consumer court forum has jurisdiction only to entertain complaints relating to consumers; a
civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a criminal complaint; the Presidency Small Causes
Court has no jurisdiction to try suits for specific performance of a contract; for dissolution of
partnership, etc; in respect of testamentary matters, divorce cases, probate proceedings,
insolvency proceedings, etc., only the District of Civil Judge has jurisdiction. Thus, different
courts have been empowered to decide different types of suits. Certain courts are precluded
from entertaining certain suits. In recent times, Special Courts have been set up in view of the
ever-increasing technicalities and complexities of law, viz., Electricity Courts, Corporation
Courts, Consumer Courts, etc.
When a court of limited jurisdiction (Rent Controller) has jurisdiction to decide only a
particular dispute (fixation of standard rent), it has jurisdiction to consider collateral issue
(title of the landlord to the property) only prima facie and the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to
decide such issue finally is not taken away.

Original and appellate jurisdiction - In the exercise of original jurisdiction, a court entertains
and decides suits and in its appellate jurisdiction, it entertains and decides appeals. Thus, a
court dealing with the case for the first time after institution, is acting in original jurisdiction.
Munsif's Courts, Courts of Civil Judge and Small Causes Courts are having original
jurisdiction only, while District Courts and High Courts are having original as well as
appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is mainly a forum of appellate jurisdiction, and it
exercises original jurisdiction only in specified or exceptional cases.

Writ jurisdiction - When a High Court or the Supreme Court deals with any of the writs under
the Constitution for the purposes they are meant for the Court is known as writ court.

Territorial or local jurisdiction - Every court has its own limits, fixed by the Government
beyond which it cannot exercise its jurisdiction. Thus, the District Judge is in the charge of
the district and cannot exercise his powers beyond a district. The High Court has jurisdiction
over the whole territory of the State with in which it is situate. The Supreme Court has
jurisdiction
were whole territory of India. Again, a court has no jurisdiction to try suit for immovable
property situated beyond its local limits.
Pecuniary jurisdiction - Throughout India there are a large number of civil courts of different
grades having jurisdiction to try suits or hear appeals of different amount or value. The Code
provides that a court will have jurisdiction only over those suits, the amount or value of the
subject matter of which does not end the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction (Sec 6).
Some courts have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction e.g. High Courts and District Courts have
no pecuniary limitations. But there are other courts having jurisdiction to try suits up to a
particular amount. Thus, where a court is empowered deal with the matters where the value
of the suit of the subject matter in question is less than 5 lacs, the court is not entitled to
entertain the suit above that pecuniary limit and if it does so, the adjudication would be void.
A Presidency Small Causes Court cannot entertain a suit in which the amount claimed
exceeds Rs. 1,000

Sec. 9 states that "The Court shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have
jurisdictions to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either
expressly or impliedly barred
Proviso II states that “A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit
of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of
question as to religious rites or ceremonies.
Proviso II- For the purpose of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are
attached to the office referred to in proviso I or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place.
One of the basic principles of law is that every right has a remedy i.e. Ubi jus ibi remedium.
Every civil suit is cognizable unless it is barred. Where statutory enactments only create
rights or liabilities without providing for remedies, any person having a grievance can
approach the ordinary civil court on the principle of law that where there is a right there is
remedy (Shiv
Kumar Music Corporation.
Sec. 9 is structured on the basic principle of civilized jurisprudence that absence of
machinery for enforcement of right renders the right nugatory. Each word and expression in
Sec. 9 casts an obligation on the court to exercise jurisdiction for enforcement of right. The
word 'shall' makes it mandatory.
Suits of Civil Nature
The words 'civil nature' are wider than the words 'civil proceedings'. The section would,
therefore, be available in every case where the dispute has the characteristic of affecting one's
rights which are not only civil but of civil nature (Most Rex PMA, Metropolitan v Moran
Mar Marthom.
A suit is of 'civil nature if the principal question therein relates to the determination of a civil
right and enforcement thereof. It is not the status of the parties to the suit, but the subject
matter of it which determines whether or not the suit is of a civil nature. The expression "suits
of a civil nature" will cover private rights and obligations of a citizen. Political, social and
religious questions are not covered by that expression.
A suit in which principal question relates to caste or religion is not a suit of a civil nature. But
if the principal question in the suit is of a civil nature (the right to property or to an office)
and the adjudication incidentally involves the determination relating to a caste question or to
religious rights and ceremonies, it does not cease to be a suit of a civil nature.

Suits Expressly/Impliedly Barred

A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has a right to institute a civil suit unless its
cognizance is barred, either expressly or impliedly. A suit is said to be "expressly barred"
when it is barred by any enactment for the time being in force. It is open to a competent
legislature to bar jurisdiction of civil courts with respect to a particular class of suits of a civil
nature. Thus, the matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Courts or under
the Code of Criminal Procedure or the matters dealt with by special tribunals under the
relevant statutes are expressly barred from the cognizance of a civil court. But if the remedy
provided by a statute is not adequate and all questions cannot be decided by a special
tribunal, the jurisdiction of a civil court is not ousted.
Where a statute gives finality to the orders of the special tribunal, the civil court's jurisdiction
must be held to be excluded, if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil court would
normally do in a suit. Therefore, each case requires examination whether the statute provides
rights and remedies and whether the scheme of the Acts is that the procedure provided will be
of the civil court in respect thereof (Vankamamidi V. Subba Rao v Chatlapalli S.
Ranganayakamma.
A suit is said to be "impliedly barred" when it is barred by general principles of law. Where a
specific remedy is given by a statute, it thereby deprives the person who insists upon a
remedy of any other form than that given by the statute (Jitendra Nath v Empire India and
Ceylone Tea Co. Similarly, certain suits though of a civil nature are barred on the ground of
public policy. Thus, suits by a witness to recover money agreed to be paid to him in
consideration of his giving evidence, suits on agreements void on grounds of public policy,
suits for damages against a judicial officer for acts done in the course of his duties, etc.
In Laxmi Chand v Gram Panchayat, Kararia, it was held that the scheme of the Land
Acquisition Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the civil court to take
cognizance of the cases arising under the said Act, by necessary implication, stood barred.

Exclusion of Jurisdiction (Limitation): In dealing with the question whether a civil court's
jurisdiction to entertain a suit is barred or not, it is necessary to bear in mind that every
presumption should be made in favour of the jurisdiction of a civil court. The exclusion of
jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain civil causes should not be readily inferred unless the
relevant statute contains an express provision to that effect, or leads to a necessary and
inevitable implication of that nature (Dhulabhai v State of M.P.; Gurbax Singh v Financial
Commr. , Such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied (Secretary of
State v Mask.
A statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court should be strictly construed. In case of doubt
as to the jurisdiction, the court should lean towards assumption of jurisdiction (Kamala Mills
v State of Bombay. "The jurisdiction of civil courts is all-embracing except to the extent it is
excluded by law or by clear intendment arising from such law.
The Supreme Court in State of AP v Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao observed that the normal
rule of law is that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those of
which cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded as provided under Sec. 9
of CPC but such exclusion is not readily inferred and the presumption to be drawn must be in
favour of the existence rather than exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil courts, to try civil suit.
The test adopted in examining such a question is:
(1) Whether the legislature intent to exclude arises explicitly or by necessary implication,
and,
(ii) Whether the statute in question provides for adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy
to a party aggrieved by an order made under it.
The Apex Court further laid down: Where a statute gives finality to the orders of the special
tribunals, jurisdiction of the civil courts must be held to be excluded if there is adequate
remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision does not
exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with
or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of
judicial procedure i.e. whether an order was passed by the tribunal dehors the provisions of
law - it is not mala fide, ultra vires, perverse, arbitrary, etc.

Question 3: What are the fundamental rules of pleading? What particulars are needed to
be mentioned in ‘Plaint’ and ‘Written Statement’?

Answer: Pleading is defined as plaint or written statement. Pleading are statements in writing
drawn up and filed by each party to a case, starting what his contentions will be at the trial
and giving all such details as his opponents needs to know in order to prepare his case to
answer. A plaintiff’s pleading is his plaint, and a defendant’s pleading is his written
statement.
The whole reason of pleading is to bring parties to definite issues and to diminish expenses
and delay and to prevent surprise at the time of hearing. In the case of Ganesh Trading Co. v.
Moji Ram, the supreme court held that “Provisions related to pleadings in civil cases are
meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met to enable
courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent derivations from
the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take”.

Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 lays down the fundamental principles of pleadings. Sub-rule (1) of
Rule 2 states that “Every pleading shall contain only a statement in a concise form of the
material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be,
but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.” These principles are as follows:

1. Pleading should state facts and not law: The first principle of pleadings is that they
should state only facts and not law. In the case of Kedar Lal v. Hari Lal, it was held
that it is the duty of the parties to state only the facts on which they rely upon their
claims. It is for the Court to apply the law to the facts pleaded. In the case of Gouri
Dutt Ganesh Lal Firm v. Madho Prasad, it was held that the law of pleading may be
tersely summarized in four words; “Plead facts not law.” In Ram Prasad v. State of
M.P., it was held that a mixed question of law and fact, however, should be
specifically pleaded. Again, in Union of India v. Sita Ram Jaiswal, the Court held that
a point of law which is required to be substantiated by facts should be pleaded with
necessary facts.
2. The facts stated should be material facts: The second principle of pleadings is that
they should contain a statement of material facts and material facts only. Term
‘material facts’ means according to the case of Union of India v. Sita Ram that all
facts upon which the plaintiff’s cause of action or the defendant’s defence depends, or
in other words, all those facts which must be proved in order to establish the
plaintiff’s right to relief claimed in the plaint or the defendant’s defence in the written
statement. Similarly, in the case of Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, the Supreme
Court said that the term material fact means “All the primary facts which must be
proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his
defence are material facts.”
In the case of Virendra Nath v. Satpal Singh it was held that whether a fact is a
material fact of not which is required to be pleaded by the parties depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case.
 All material facts must appear in the pleadings and the necessary particulars must be
there so as to enable the opposite party to know the case he is required to meet and to
give him a chance to get ready. If a party omits to state material facts, it would mean
that the plea has not been raised at all and the court will not allow the party to lead
evidence of the fact at the trial, unless the court gives the party leave to amend his
pleadings. The object behind it is that non-mention of material facts amounts to non-
pleading and, therefore, no cause of action arises in favour of such party.
3. Pleadings should not state the evidence: This is the third fundamental principle of
pleading. According to the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh it was held
that the pleadings should contain a statement of material facts on which the party
relies but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. The facts are further
divided into two types:
(a) Facta probanda- The facts required to be proved (material facts); and
(b) Facta probantia- The facts by means of which they are to be proved (particulars or
evidence).

The pleadings should contain only facta probanda and not facta probantia. The
material facts on which the plaintiff relies for his claim or the defendant relies for his
defence are called facta probanda, and they must be stated in the plaint or in the
written statement, as the case may be. But the facts or evidence by means of which the
material facts are to be proved are called facta probantia and need not be stated in the
pleadings.

The difference between these two classes of facts are often very difficult to draw; but
a fact as to which there is a doubt as to whether it should be placed in the one class or
the other should be pleaded.

4. The facts should be stated in concise form: The fourth and the last fundamental
principle is that the pleading should be drafted with sufficient conciseness and
precision. The object behind this principle is that the defendant must be aware of what
case he has to meet. He cannot be kept guessing as to what the plaintiff wants to
convey by the vague pleading.
In the case of Virendra Kashinath v. Vinayak N. Joshi, the words “in a concise form”
are definitely suggestive of the fact that brevity should be adhered to while drafting
pleadings. Surely, brevity should not be at the cost of excluding necessary facts, but it
does not mean niggling in the pleadings. If care is taken in syntactic process,
pleadings can be saved from tautology.
There are some other rules of pleadings which has been defined under Rules 4-18 of
the Order 6 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Plaint is defined under Order 7, it is a statement of claim, a document, by presentation

of which the suit is instituted. Its object is to state the grounds upon which the
assistance of the court is sought by the plaintiff. It is a pleading of the plaintiff. The
particulars required in every plaint are as follows:
1. Name of the Court [Rule 1(a)]: The plaint shall contain the name of the Court in
which the suit is brought.
2. Name, description and place of residence of plaintiff or plaintiff’s [Rule 1(b)]:
- After the space for case number the name of the plaintiff and his address is to be
stated. The plaintiff has also to state his/her age. There can be more than one
plaintiff. Each plaintiff has to be serially numbered.
3. Name, description and place of residence of the defendant [Rule 1(c)]: - After
writing the plaintiffs name and description, the defendants name and address
including age has to be written in the plaint.
4. Statement if the plaintiff/defendant is minor [Rule 1(d)]: - If the plaintiff or
defendant is a minor or a person of unsound mind, a statement to that effect has to
be stated. If the person is a minor, his age has to be entered. This rule is the result
of substitution of older provision in 1959.
5. Cause of action [Rule 1(e)]: - The cause of action can be described as the
circumstances which led to the suit. This is actually elaborated throughout the
body of the plaint. Besides a separate paragraph is usually needed showing the
particular circumstances or dates where the cause of action raised.
6. Jurisdiction [Rule 1(f)]: - The plaint shall contain a separate paragraph stating
that the Court in which it is brought has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power of
the Court to try cases. The jurisdiction of a court depends on the type of the case
and the relief sought.
7. Relief [Rule 7-8]: - The plaint shall separately state the reliefs needed, separately
numbered. The Court grants the reliefs asked. The Court also grants a lesser relief
from the reliefs asked.
8. Set-Off : - Where the plaintiff has allowed a set-off or relinquished a portion of
his claim, the amount so allowed or relinquished has to be separately stated in
paragraph in the body of the plaint.
9. Valuation: - Each relief has a value. It is stated in the Court Fees Act. Before
presenting the plaint, the advocate has to look into the Court Fees Act the fees
payable for the reliefs sought in the plaint. This has to be calculated and separately
stated in the plaint.
10. Verification: -Apart from the above as stated in Order 7, Order 6(15) of the CPC
says that every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the
parties. This verification shall be with reference to the number of paragraphs and
some other conditions.

Written statement has been covered under Order 8 of Civil Procedure Code where it
has been defined as a term of specific connotation ordinarily signifying a reply to the
plaint filed by the plaintiff. A written statement is filed by the defendant or by his
duly constituted agent. Particulars of written statement is covered under Rules 1-5 and
7-10 and it is same as that of the Plaint instituted by the plaintiff.