The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
THE FIRST SCHEDULE
ORDER VI: PLEADINGS GENERALLY
Rule 8: Denial of contract.
Bare Act
Where a contract is alleged in any pleading, a bare denial of the same by the opposite party shall be construed only as a denial in fact of the express contract alleged or of the matters of fact from which the same may be implied, and not as a denial of the legality or sufficiency in law of such contract.
Simplified Act
- If someone claims there is a contract in their legal documents, and the other side simply denies it, this denial only means they are saying the contract or the facts that suggest there is a contract are not true.
- This denial does not mean they are arguing about whether the contract is legal or valid under the law.
Explanation using examples
Example 1:
Scenario: Ramesh files a lawsuit against Suresh, claiming that Suresh agreed to sell him a piece of land for ₹10 lakhs and later refused to complete the sale.
Pleading by Ramesh: Ramesh alleges in his pleading that there was a contract between him and Suresh for the sale of the land.
Response by Suresh: Suresh files a written statement denying the existence of any such contract.
Application of Rule 8: According to Rule 8, Suresh's denial will be interpreted as a denial of the fact that the contract was made or the facts from which the contract could be implied. It will not be taken as a denial of the legality or sufficiency of the contract itself.
Outcome: The court will focus on whether the contract was actually made or whether the facts support the existence of such a contract, rather than questioning the legal validity of the contract at this stage.
Example 2:
Scenario: Priya sues her business partner, Anil, claiming that they had an oral agreement to share profits equally from their joint venture, but Anil has not honored this agreement.
Pleading by Priya: Priya alleges in her pleading that there was an oral contract between her and Anil to share profits equally.
Response by Anil: Anil files a written statement simply denying that any such oral agreement existed.
Application of Rule 8: Under Rule 8, Anil's denial will be taken as a denial of the fact that the oral agreement was made or the facts from which such an agreement could be implied. It will not be considered a denial of whether such an oral agreement is legally enforceable or sufficient under the law.
Outcome: The court will examine whether there was indeed an oral agreement or whether the circumstances imply such an agreement, without delving into the legal enforceability of the agreement at this point.
