Order VIII Rule 5 sub rule 1 of CPC
5. Specific denial.
1[(1)] 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.
Also read another subrule in same rule as........
(3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader.
**************************************************************************************************
I have a similar scenario to narrate.
An Aged parent (plaintiff) asks for Maintenance from their major son, (respondent who's earning),
PLAINT
Plaintiff makes allegation in pleading (on 1st page, it cought the attension of judge perversely) that ..........
1) Plaintiff has insufficient means to live, and their son i.e. Repondent has 50 lacs of rupees, and that
2) He was working in a big company at a high post, and that
3) Now he has become lazy and not maintaining parents'
WS
Respondent replied to allegations in his WS that ..........
1) Respondent states that 'anything and everything’ as alleged in plaint shall be treated as 'explicit denial' unless explicitly admitted by respondent in his WS, for one among many of the reasons that 'allegations may also be half-truth and intentionally misleading'.
2) Respondent states in regards to POINT(1) in PLAINT that 'Although the fact that “Repondent has 50 lacs of rupees” is TRUE , it is a HALF-TRUTH and the fact is that 40 lacs out of those are invested in parent’s name and parents are getting the ‘benefits’ from those investments and hence son does not need to give additional money to parents
3) Respondent states in regards to POINT(3) in PLAINT that ‘Parents can’t compel a son or decide as to his careers, aspirations or can not set any expectations on extrapolations from previous earnings of son’. Now he is not working for reasons to seek new avenues and interests in life.
EVIDENCE
Neither Respondent nor Plaintiff filed any evidence of above statements clearly.
Court was pleased pass an interim order in favour of plaintiff.
Matter has now gone in review
Review Applicant (Respondent) Vs. Defendant (Plaintiff)
Respondent stated that ‘it can’t said to be as his admission about 50 lacs, because it is a half truth”.
Respondent also stated that ‘If the Petitioner had proved that “Respondent had 50 lacs, then he would have filed evidence of 40 lacs invested in parent's name and about benefits being earned.’
Plaintiff stated that ‘Respondent had admitted that He had 50 lacs’ and hence they don’t need to prove it.
WHO’s plea is legally correct?
