WRITTEN STATEMENT

Meaning:
 Written statement is the pleading of the defendant.
 It is prepared in a concise form to contradict the
allegations made against him in the plait.
 It can be filed at any time before the first hearing or
within such time as the Court may permit.
 Order VIII of the CPC provides for the filing of a Written
Statement, the particulars to be contained therein and
the manner, of doing so.
 Where there are several defendants, the Written
Statement of one cannot bind the other.
Essential Parts of Written Statement:
Part-I: The Heading and Title.
Part-II: The body of the Written Statement.
Part-III: Signature and Verification.
Defenses which a defendant can take:
 Admissions and Denials
 Dilatory Pleas or Pleas
 Objection in Point of Law
 Special Defence
 Set off
Admissions and Denials:
 The defendant should admit or deny all the material
facts given in the plaint
 Every fact should be replied in the same serial order in
which it has been alleged in the plaint.
 Where a certain fact alleged in the plaint is within the
defendant’s knowledge, the defendant should say
‘admitted’ or ‘denied’ and not ‘not admitted’.
[For instance, where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant beat
him, the defendant should deny it and not that ‘not admitted’]
 Where the fact is not within the knowledge of the
defendant, he should say ‘not admitted’ and not that the
fact is denied by the defendant.
Dilatory Pleas or Pleas:
 Pleas which merely delay the trial of a suit on merits have
been characterized as ‘dilatory pleas’
 They simply raise formal objections to the proceedings and
do not give any substantial reply to the merits of the case.
[Eg. The plea that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not sufficient.]
 Such pleas should be raised at the earliest opportunity.
Objections to point of law:
 By such an objection, the defendant ‘means to say that
even if the allegations of fact (made in the plaint) be
supposed to be correct, still the legal inference which the
plaintiff claims to draw in his favor from those facts is not
permissible’.
[Eg. The plea that ‘the plaint does not disclose any cause of action’ ]
Special defense (confession and avoidance):
 Special defense is more appropriately called the plea of
confession and avoidance.
 It is a plea whereby the defendant admits the allegations made
in the plaint ‘but seeks to destroy their effect by alleging
affirmatively certain facts of his own, showing some
justification or excuse of the matter charged against him or
some discharge or release from it.
 [Eg. In a suit for breach of contract the defendant may admit the contract and at the same time, plead
that the defendant was induced to enter into the contract by fraud. ]
Set-off:
 The plea that there exists a debt owed to the debtor by the
creditor so that the creditor’s claim against the debtor should
be extinguished or reduced to the extent of that debt.
 Set-off is limited to money claims and is a ground of defense
rather than a substantive claim.
 A Defendant to a suit for recovery of money cannot only defend
the suit, but can claim a set-off in respect of any claim of his
own.
 If his claim exceeds that of the plaintiff, he can make a claim of
a decree for the amount in excess.
 WRITTEN STATEMENT ON THE BASIS OF PRONOTE
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
MUNSIF AT VIJAYAWADA.
O.S.NO. 763 of 20__.
Between:
G.Sulochana Devi .. PLAINTIFF
and
Yanamadala Rama Rao .. DEFENDANT
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER VIII RULE I OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
1. The material allegations in the plaint filed on
behalf of the plaintiff are not true and correct and
the suit is not maintainable either on facts or at law.
Plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief as against
this defendant.
2. Allegations in para No. 3 of the plaint that this
defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 4-
5-2018 as a loan at Vijayawada from the plaintiff and
that he executed a suit pronote in favor of the
plaintiff etc. are not true and correct and those false
allegations are purposely made for creating
territorial jurisdiction in this Honorable Court at
Vijayawada. This defendant states that he did not
 borrow any amount from the plaintiff at Vijayawada
and did not execute the suit pronote in favor of the
plaintiff at Vijayawada. On the other hand, this
defendant submits that the plaintiff’s husband Sri
Gudapati Koteswararao lent an amount of Rs.
8,000/- alone to this defendant at Bapulapadu where
this defendant was residing and obtained the suit
pronote at Bapulapadu from this defendant in the
name of his wife - the plaintiff herein.
3. This defendant states that he originally belonged to
Thummalapalli in Nandivada Mandal and the
plaintiff’s husband also belonged to Thummalapalli
village in the same Mandal. Thus, the plaintiff’s
husband and the defendant moved together closely
as friends from a very long time. This defendant
states that the plaintiff’s husband has been lending
money to the needy people who are acquainted with
him. The said G. Koteswararao lent the amount of
Rs. 8,000/- to this defendant at Bapulapadu village
and obtained the suit pronote for Rs. 10,000/- at
Bapulapadu village. So, this defendant states that this
Court has neither territorial nor pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. It is
pertinent to note that the plaintiff did not make a
mention about the fact of contracting the debt at
Vijayawada and about the execution of the suit
pronote at Vijayawada even in the Registered Notice
issued on her behalf on 3-3-2021. This circumstance
clearly shows that the contention of the plaintiff that
 the suit transaction took place at Vijayawada and that
the suit pronote was executed at Vijayawada are only
the result of an after-thought to enable the plaintiff
to file this suit at Vijayawada and to enable her to
harass this defendant. So, this defendant states that
the suit is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.
4. Allegations in Para No. 6 of the plaint that this
defendant is not an agriculturist entitled for the
benefits of Act 4 of 1938 etc. are not true. Plaintiff is
not entitled to claim interest at more than 12 ½ % p.a.
and she is also not entitled to claim interest at
 more than 6% p.a. after the suit is filed. The claim
made by the plaintiff in para No. 11 of the plaint for
subsequent interest at 24% p.a. after the filing of
the suit is not at all tenable and cannot be granted.
In any event the rate of interest claimed at 24% p.a.
is penal, usurious, and exorbitant and is not at all
sustainable in law.
5. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file
this suit and the one mentioned in Para No. 7 of
the plaint is not true and correct.
6. Allegations in the plaint which are not expressly
traversed herein are not true and they are denied.
7. This defendant, therefore, prays that the
Honorable Court may be pleased to dismiss the
suit with costs.

Advocate for Defendant Defendant

The facts stated above are all true to the best of my
knowledge, belief and information.
Vijayawada,
Dt.: Defendant
Record Work:
Draft Written Statement for any of the two Plaints:
1. Suit filed by a bank for recovery of loan
2. Suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale
3. Suit for partition
4. Suit for redemption by mortgagor