9.3 Orders 8–9 — Written Statement, Appearance & Default

9.3 Orders 8–9 — Written Statement, Appearance & Default

Quick Answer: Order 8 is the defendant’s pleading: file a written statement, plead new facts, make specific denials (not evasive), and raise set-off (and, where available, counter-claim) in proper form. Order 9 is the attendance Code: who appears on the hearing day determines whether the suit is heard ex parte, dismissed for default, or proceeds inter partes. Learn O.9 R.6, R.8, R.9, R.13 as a procedure flow, and the sufficient cause standard for restoration / setting aside ex parte decrees.

How Orders 8 and 9 fit together

A perfect plaint still fails if the defendant never answers and the plaintiff mishandles default procedure—or if the defendant answers with evasive denials that amount to admissions.

---

Order 8 — Written statement

Written statement — O.8 R.1 theme

The defendant must present a written statement of his defence at or before the first hearing or within such time as the court directs under the applicable Rule and practice. Failure to file a written statement can lead to consequences under Order 8 (including the court’s power to pronounce judgment in appropriate cases where the defendant fails to present a WS—classic O.8 R.10 theme).

Exam focus: WS is the defendant’s pleading. It is subject to Order 6 formalities (signature, verification, material facts).

New facts must be pleaded — O.8 R.2

The defendant must raise by his pleading all matters which show the suit not to be maintainable, or that the transaction is either void or voidable in point of law, and all such grounds of defence as, if not raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, or would raise issues of fact not arising out of the plaint (e.g., fraud, limitation, release, payment, performance, facts showing illegality).

Practical rule: Defences that change the factual story must appear in the WS. Ambush defences are improper.

Specific denial — O.8 R.3, R.4, R.5 (high-yield)

Order 8 Rule 3: It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff; the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth (except damages).

Order 8 Rule 4 — Evasive denial: Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Example: if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount; he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received.

Order 8 Rule 5 — Specific denial / deemed admission: 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. The court may, however, in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.

This trio is among the most tested Order 8 themes on professional exams.

Set-off — Order 8 Rule 6

Order 8 Rule 6 allows the defendant, in a suit for recovery of money, to claim a set-off of any ascertained sum of money legally recoverable by him from the plaintiff, subject to conditions in the Rule (including that both parties fill the same character as in the plaintiff’s suit, and territorial recoverability constraints as stated).

Set-off essentials for MCQs:

1. Plaintiff’s suit is for money.
2. Defendant’s claim is for an ascertained sum (liquidated, not a vague unliquidated damages claim dressed as set-off).
3. Sum is legally recoverable by defendant from plaintiff.
4. Pleaded in the written statement with particulars required by the Rule.

If set-off is established, the court may pronounce judgment for the balance found due to either party.

Counter-claim themes

A counter-claim is the defendant’s own claim for relief against the plaintiff (and sometimes additional parties), tried in the same suit so that cross-demands are resolved together. Where the applicable CPC text and practice recognize counter-claims as a distinct pleading device (often discussed alongside or beyond classic set-off), remember the functional differences:

LAW-GAT stems often use “set-off” with the ascertained sum clue. If the stem says the defendant wants a declaration or injunction against the plaintiff, think counter-claim/independent relief, not classic liquidated set-off.

Other Order 8 tools (brief)

• O.8 R.7–8: Defence or set-off founded upon separate grounds; new ground of defence arising after WS.
• O.8 R.9: Subsequent pleadings only by leave of court (no endless volleys without control).
• O.8 R.10: Procedure when party fails to present written statement—as ordered, including power to pronounce judgment.

---

Order 9 — Appearance of parties and consequence of non-appearance

Order 9 answers one practical question: who is present when the suit is called?

Procedure flow table (memorize)

Ex parte proceedings — O.9 R.6

Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called for hearing:

• If it is proved that the summons was duly served, the court may proceed ex parte.
• If summons not duly served, the court shall direct a second summons.
• If served but not in sufficient time for the defendant to appear and answer on the day fixed, the court shall postpone the hearing and give notice.

Ex parte does not mean the plaintiff automatically wins without proof. The plaintiff must still satisfy the court on the claim, though the defendant is not present to contest.

Dismissal for plaintiff’s default — O.9 R.8 & R.9

If the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear, the court shall dismiss the suit unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and where part only is admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder.

Order 9 Rule 9: Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8, the plaintiff is precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside; if he satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, the court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.

Contrast with R.3/R.4 dismissals: Where neither party appears (R.3) or certain service-related dismissals (R.2), R.4 is more liberal about a fresh suit or restoration pathway. R.8 dismissal is harsher: no fresh suit on the same cause—restoration is the main door.

Setting aside ex parte decree — O.9 R.13

In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside. The court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into court, or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit, if the defendant satisfies the court that:

1. The summons was not duly served; or
2. He was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.

Proviso themes (exam-aware): Setting aside may be refused where the ex parte decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against the applying defendant only (e.g., inseparability with other defendants)—apply the text of the Rule and the stem facts. Also, a defendant who has been properly served and simply ignored the date cannot invent “sufficient cause” out of negligence alone; courts look for adequate reasons (illness with proof, wrong court date reliance in proper circumstances, etc.—fact-sensitive).

“Sufficient cause” — shared standard

Both restoration after plaintiff’s default (R.9) and setting aside ex parte decree (R.13) turn on sufficient cause (R.13 also has the independent “summons not duly served” route). For MCQs:

• Sufficient cause = adequate reason that prevented appearance; not a synonym for “any excuse however weak.”
• Due service of summons is often litigated: wrong address, service on wrong person, or failure of prescribed mode can support R.13 without proving a separate “sufficient cause” story.

---

Integrated procedure flow (plaint → default)

Plaint filed (O.7) → Summons to defendant
        ↓
Defendant appears + files WS (O.8) → Issues → Trial inter partes
        ↓
Defendant fails to appear after due service → Ex parte (O.9 R.6) → Ex parte decree
        ↓                                      ↓
                              Apply O.9 R.13 (no due service OR sufficient cause)

Plaintiff fails to appear; defendant present → Dismissal (O.9 R.8)
        ↓
Apply restoration O.9 R.9 (sufficient cause) — fresh suit barred on same cause

Neither appears → Dismissal (O.9 R.3) → Fresh suit or restore path (O.9 R.4)

---

Exam scenarios

Scenario A — Evasive denial: Plaint alleges defendant borrowed Rs. 800,000 on a promissory note. WS says only “Defendant denies the contents of the plaint and puts plaintiff to strict proof.” That is a general denial, vulnerable under O.8 R.3–5. Better: deny execution of the note, or admit execution but plead repayment with particulars, etc.

Scenario B — Set-off: P sues D for Rs. 500,000 price of goods. D pleads that P owes D Rs. 200,000 as an ascertained liquidated debt on another transaction legally recoverable, and claims set-off. If conditions of O.8 R.6 are met, court may try the set-off and decree the balance.

Scenario C — Ex parte decree: Summons duly served; D absents; court proceeds under O.9 R.6 and decrees. D later applies under O.9 R.13 claiming only that he was “busy in another city.” Without more, sufficient cause is weak. If D proves summons was affixed at a wrong address and never reached him, the not duly served limb is stronger.

Scenario D — Plaintiff default: On trial date D is present; P’s counsel is absent without arrangement. Suit dismissed under O.9 R.8. P cannot simply file a brand-new suit on the same cause (R.9 bar); P must seek restoration by showing sufficient cause.

---

High-yield traps

1. Treating general denial as enough — Violates O.8 R.3; risks R.5 admission.
2. Calling unliquidated damages a set-off — Classic set-off wants an ascertained sum.
3. Assuming ex parte = automatic full claim without proof — Court still adjudicates plaintiff’s case.
4. Confusing R.8 dismissal with R.3 dismissal — Fresh suit barred after R.8, not treated identically to R.3/R.4.
5. Forgetting the dual keys to R.13 — (i) summons not duly served or (ii) sufficient cause preventing appearance.

---

One-line revision card

O.8 = WS + specific denial (R.3–5) + set-off (R.6) + counter-claim theme · O.9 R.6 = plaintiff only → ex parte · O.9 R.8–9 = plaintiff absent → dismiss; no fresh suit; restore on sufficient cause · O.9 R.13 = set aside ex parte decree (no due service or sufficient cause).