Q2

WRITTEN STATEMENT –

SYNOPSIS –

Meaning –

Who may file written statement –

Time limit for filing written statement –

Written Statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC –

Legal provision for an additional statement –

First of all, we should know that what is written statement. Actually, it is a pleading of the defendant in
the answer of the plaint filed by the plaintiff against him. It is a reply statement of the defendant in a
suit specifically denying the allegations made against him by the plaintiff in his plaint. The provision
regarding the written statement has provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Meaning –

The expression “Written Statement” has not been defined in this code. It is a term of specific meaning
ordinarily signifying a reply to the plaint filed by the plaintiff. In other words, it is the pleading of the
defendant wherein he deals with the material fact alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint and also states any
new fact in his favour or takes legal objections against the claim of the plaintiff. However, an additional
written statement is different from a written statement. As filing the written statement is the right of the
defendant but the additional statement is based on the discretion of the court. Further, in written
statement defendant can put his case also under the heading additional plea, and can state new facts or
ground which is necessary to defeat the opponent. If the defendant wants to put his own claim against
the plaintiff he can put it by way of set-off and counterclaim u/o 8 Rule 6 and 6A of C.P.C.
Who may file written statement –

A written statement may be filed by the defendant or by his duly authorized agent. In the case of more
than one defendant, the common written statement filed by them must be signed by all A written
statement may be filed by the defendant or by his duly authorized agent. In the case of more than one
defendant, the common written statement filed by them must be signed by all of them. But it is
sufficient if it is verified by one of them who is aware of the facts of the case and is in a position to file an
affidavit. But a written statement filed by one defendant does not bind other defendants.

Time limit for filing written statement –

A written statement should be filed within thirty days from the service of the summons on him. The said
period, however, can be extended up to ninety days, (Rule-1). A defendant should present a written
statement of his defence in the said period.

Written Statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC –

The rule 9 of Order 8 was omitted by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999), has been restored by
CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002 (22 of 2002) with a fixed time period. The effect of the change is that
subsequent pleadings shall be continued to be filed and the court shall fix a time for presenting the
same, which shall be not more than thirty days.

Merely because the amendment sought is alleged to be inconsistent with the previous case of the
defendant, it is not a good reason for rejecting the application of the defendant for amendment. As per
general rule, in cases of this nature the leave to amend or to file additional written statement is granted
unless the party filing for amendment is acting malafidely or by the parties own blunder if some injury
inflicted to his opponent which cannot be compensated by award of costs; otherwise whether the
original omission arose from negligence, carelessness, or accidental error, the defect may be allowed to
be remedied if no injustice is done to the other side.

Legal provision for an additional statement –

Before Amendment Act, 2002, Order 8, Rule 9 under the nomenclature “subsequent pleadings” read as
follows :

“No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-
off or counter-claim shall be presented except by leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court
thinks fit, but the Court may any time require a written statement or additional written statement from
any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same.”

By the Amendment Act of 2002, Rule 9, Order 8 was re-enacted as follows :

“No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set
off or counterclaim be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court
thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement or
additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for
presenting the same.”

In pursuance to the amended Rule 9 of the Order 8, the Court was given power under extraordinary and
in rare circumstances to require at any time written statement or additional written statement to be
filed in a case within the outer limit of 30 days to be fixed by the Court.

The only difference between the old Code and the new Code as far as Order 8, Rule 9 is concerned, is
that in old Code it was the discretion of the Court to fix the time for presenting the written statement,
nonetheless, in the new code there is a fixed period of 30 days for presenting written statement or
additional statement. Hence, after amendment, the Court may permit the filing of the written statement
or an additional written statement from any of the parties, but the Court must have to fix an outer limit
for presenting the statement which should not be less than 30 days. Moreover, the power under Order
8, Rule 9 is to be used only in exceptional cases and for reasons recorded in writing and cannot be
exercised by the defendant as a matter of right. Such exercise of discretion must be judicial and not
capricious and such right must be keeping with the spirit of the amended Code.

What is a third-party procedure?

Third-party procedure refers to the procedure in a civil suit whereby a defendant is given room to
join another person who is not a party to suit as co-defendant into the suit on the grounds that he
(the defendant) has a legally recognized claim against that other person called the Third Party.

For example, a driver can join the insurance company as a party to the personal injury(accident)
suit.
The procedure is true, joinder of the defendant in disguise.

The law which governs the third part procedure in Tanzania is the Civil Procedure Code
[CAP 33 R: E 2002] under Order I rules 14-23.

The main purpose of the third part procedure is to prevent a multiplicity of actions. That
means instead of the defendant suing the third party in a separate suite that consists of
a similar course of action, the law allows him to join that third party in the present suit.

Conditions for Joining a Third Party to the Suit

According to Order 1 Rule 14 of Cap. 33, a defendant in a suit shall not exercise the
option to join any person as a Third-Party into the suit unless the following facts exist
cumulatively.

1. That the person to be joined is indeed not a party to the suit.

2. That the defendant who wants to join such other person (Third-party) claims for the
third party.
3. That the defendant claims from the third party for any contribution or indemnity.
4. That the claim by the defendant is related to or connected with the subject matter of
the suit and substantially the same as a relief or remedy claimed by the plaintiff.

Procedure for Joining a Third Party Into the Suit

Seek court leave to file thrid part notice
The defendant who wants to join a third party into the suit must first apply to the court
for and obtain leave to present to the court a third party notice before he is successful in
the mission.

The application for leave follows the traditional tune of filling a chamber summons
supported by an affidavit.

This application must be ex-parte unless the court otherwise directs.

Contents of an Affidavit Supporting an Application for Leave to Present a Third Party

Notice
An affidavit supporting the application for leave to present a third party notice must,
according to Order 1 rule 14 (2) of Cap. 33 contain the following facts;

1. The nature of the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit;

2. The stage which the proceedings in the suit has reached;
3. The nature of the claim made by the applicant against the third party and its
relationship to the plaintiff’s claim against the applicant (defendant); and
4. The name and address of the third party.
It is on these legal requirements that the court held in MANDANI v. SUCHALE [1971]
HCD. 10 that an affidavit supporting an application for leave to present a third party
notice must contain sufficient facts to prove that it is necessary to join the third party;

An Order Granting Leave to Present a Third Party Notice

Once the court has been satisfied with the application, it may order the defendant to file
his third party notice as prayed.

Dismissal of the Application for leave to present a third party notice

The defendant’s application to the court for leave to present a third party notice is an
application like any other application.

The defendant is not thus entitled to meander with the suit or to abuse the court process
under the umbrella of the application.

In SLADE & KEMPTON (JEWELLERY) LTD v. N KAYMAN LTD LEROY (THIRD

PARTY); [1969] 3 ALL ER 786 for, For example, it was held that such an application
may be dismissed for want of prosecution if the defendant unreasonably delays it;

It must also be noted here that, generally a court of law has powers to dismiss any
proceedings filed with the intent to abuse court process; see EZECKIEL B. CHENGE v.
ADAM KAITA HC. CIV. CASE NO; 40 of 1998 AT MWANZA (unreported)

Persons to be served with the third part Notice

The third-party notice so presented must be served to all the parties to the suit including
the third party himself, it is served as if it is a pleading, and it must be signed by the
Judge or Magistrate or any authorized officer and shall be sealed with the seal of the
court.

Certainly, the normal procedure of service of summons applies to this notice. (Order 1
rule 16 read together with Order V rule 2 of Cap. 33)

Right of Defence by the Third Party

Upon receipt of the notice, the third party may exercise any of two options if he objects
to the claim; he may directly file a defense disputing the plaintiff’s claim or he may file a
defense against the defendant’s claim (who presented the notice).

He must exercise either of the two options within 21 days from the service of the notice
or within the period which the court will provide (Order 1 Rule 17 of Cap. 33)

Costs under Third Party Procedure

As it is in the normal conduct of cases, the court is clothed with powers to decide all
questions of costs between a third party and other parties to the suit, under the
circumstances it may make such orders as to costs as it may think just [Order I rule 20].
These powers of the court should be considered together with the general powers in
respect of costs under S. 30 of Cap. 33.

The main legal principle propounded by the Court of Appeal in the case of NJORO
FURNITURE MART LTD v TANZANIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO LTD 1995 TLR 205 in
respect of costs is also to be kept in mind, in this decision the Court held thus;

Costs follow the event; where the court directs that any costs shall not follow the event
the court shall state its reasons in writing”

Time Limitation under Third Party Procedure;

According to Order, I rule 20, the limitation of time as provided for by the Civil Procedure
Code, Cap. 33 and the Law of Limitation Act, Cap. 89 apply mutatis mutandis to the
third party procedure as provided for under Order I rules 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19.

Under these instructions of the law, therefore, the limitation of time in respect of the third
party procedure applies as if;

1. The third-party notice was a summons to defend;

2. The defendant presenting the notice was a plaintiff and the third party was a
defendant;
3. The date fixed for the giving of the direction was a date fixed for the hearing of a suit.
4. Judgment entered against the third party in accordance with the provisions of rule 19
was an ex parte judgment entered against a defendant in a suit

Q3
Res Judicata is a phrase which has been evolved from a Latin maxim, which stand for ‘the thing
has been judged’, meaning there by that the issue before the court has already been decided by
another court, between the same parties. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case before it as
being useless. Res Judicata as a concept is applicable both in case of Civil as well as Criminal
legal system.

The term is also used to mean as to ‘bar re-litigation’ of such cases between the same parties,
which is different between the two legal systems. Once a final judgment has been announced in
a lawsuit, the subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or
substantially the same as the earlier one, they would apply the Res Judicata doctrine ‘to
preserve the effect of the first judgment’. This is to prevent injustice to the parties of a case
supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources and time of
the Judicial System.
And, therefore, the same case cannot be taken up again either in the same or in the different
Court of India. This is just to prevent them from multiplying judgments, so a prevailing plaintiff
may not recover damages from the defendant twice for the same injury.

For making Res Judicata binding, several factors must be met up with:
# identity in the thing at suit;
# identity of the cause at suit;
# identity of the parties to the action;
# identity in the designation of the parties involved;
# whether the judgment was final;
# whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.
Brief History and Origin of Res Judicata
“Res judicata pro veritate accipitur” is the full latin maxim which has, over the years, shrunk to
mere “Res Judicata” .
The concept of Res Judicata finds its evolvement from the English Common Law system, being
derived from the overriding concept of judicial economy, consistency, and finality . From the
common law, it got included in the Code of Civil Procedure and which was later as a whole was
adopted by the Indian legal system.

From the Civil Procedure Code, the Administrative Law witnesses its applicability. Then, slowly
but steadily the other acts and statutes also started to admit the concept of Res Judicata within
its ambit.
The Nature of Res Judicata
The Doctrine of Res Judicata strives to strike a balance between the two largely separated
poles. One pit assures an efficient judicial system that renders final judgments with certainty and
prevents the inequity of a defendant having to defend the same claim or issue of law repeatedly.
On the other hand, it protects the plaintiff’s interest in having issues and claims fully and fairly
litigated.

A US Supreme Court Justice explained the need for this legal precept as follows:
Federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata (claim
preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). Under Res Judicata, a final judgment on
the merits of an action precludes the parties . . . from re-litigating issues that were or could have
been raised in that action. Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact
or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude re-litigation of the issue in a suit on
a different cause of action involving a party to the first cause. As this court and other courts
have often recognized, res judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the costs and
vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and by preventing inconsistent
decisions, encourage reliance on a judication
The basic point involved in the Nature of the doctrine of Res Judicata is that the doctrine tries to
bring in natural and fair justice to the parties and that too by barring the other party to file a
multiple number of suits either for justice or for harassing the other party.

Res judicata includes two related concepts: claim preclusion, and issue preclusion (also called
collateral estoppel), though sometimes Res Judicata is used more narrowly to mean only claim
preclusion. Claim preclusion focuses on barring a suit from being brought again on a legal
cause of action that has already been finally decided between the parties. Issue preclusion bars
the re-litigation of factual issues that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or
jury as part of an earlier claim.

It is often difficult to determine which, if either, of these apply to later lawsuits that are seemingly
related, because many causes of action can apply to the same factual situation and vice versa.

Therefore, the nature of the doctrine of Res Judicata is to enable the Courts deliver the justice
and then to dismiss or freeze the other active suits which are of the very same nature although
is at different stage. Such a role enables the Court to dismiss the matter from its jurisdiction and
also the jurisdiction of the other Courts which are at the same level.

Also that Res Judicata does not restrict the appeals process, which is considered a linear
extension of the same lawsuit as it travels up (and back down) the appellate court ladder.
Appeals are considered the appropriate manner by which it to challenge a judgment rather than
trying to start a new trial, and once the appeals process is exhausted or waived, Res Judicata
will apply even to a judgment that is contrary to law.

Scope of Res Judicata

The Scope of Res Judicata has very well been decided in the case of Gulam Abbas v. State of
U.P. where the code embodies the rules of conclusiveness as evidence or bars as a plea of an
issue tried in an earlier suit founded on a plaint in which the matter is directly and substantially
an issue becomes final. Section 11 does create any right or interest over the property but
merely operates as a bar to try the issue ‘once again’. The Court is assumed and applied to all
the judicial bodies working in India.

The scope of an earlier judgment is probably the most difficult question that judges must resolve
in applying res judicata. Sometimes merely part of a subsequent lawsuit will be affected, such
as a single claim being struck from a complaint, or a single factual issue being removed from
reconsideration in the new trial. The principle of Res Judicata has been held to be of wider
application on the basis of the wider principle of the finality of decision by Courts of law and a
decision under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act of 1934 was held to operate as
Res Judicata Section 11 CPC which embodies the principle of Res Judicata has been held to be
not exhaustive and even though a matter may not be directly covered by the provisions of that
section the matter may still be Res Judicata on general principles.

The scope of the principle of Res Judicata is not confined to what is contained in Section 11 but
is of more general application. Res Judicata could be as much applicable to different stages of
the same suit as to findings on issues in different suits.

In the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Smt. Deorajin Debi, where the principle of Res Judicata is
invoked in the case of the different stages of proceedings in the same suit the nature of the
proceedings, the scope of the enquiry which the adjectival law provides for the decision being
reached as well as the specific provision made on matters touching such decisions are some of
the factors to be considered before the principle is held to be applicable. Order IX Rule 7 does
not put an- end to the litigation nor does it involve the determination of any issues in controversy
in the suit. A decision or direction in an interlocutory proceeding of the type provided for by
Order IX Rule 7 is not of the kind which can operate as Res Judicata so as to bar the hearing on
the, merits of an application under Order IX Rule 13
The principle of estoppel is an important concept of law of evidence.
Under section 115 of Indian evidence act - When one person has, by his declaration, act or
omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act
upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding
between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.
Illustration A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby
induces B to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set
aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to
prove his want of title.
Essential Elements –
A. A person misrepresents by his act, omission or declaration
B. Such misrepresent is intentionally caused to make a person believe a thing
C. The other person believes such misrepresentation to be true
D. Such act causes injury to the other person
E. Such person is unaware of actual situation

Types of Estoppel -
1 Estoppel by Record -
Estoppel by record is created by the decision of any competent court. When any court decides finally
over a subject then it becomes conclusive and the parties, their representative, executor, administrator
etc become bound to that decision.
2 Estoppel by Deed
When any person becomes bound to another person on the basis of a record regarding few facts, then
neither that person nor any person claiming through him shall be allowed to deny it. or in other words
When a party has entered into an engagement by a deed claiming certain fact, neither he nor his
representatives can contest these facts later.
3 Estoppel by Conduct
Estoppel by conduct is such estoppel which arises due to act, conduct or misrepresentation by any
party. When any person causes another person to believe by his words or conduct or encourages them
to believe and the other person acts upon that belief and causes change in their situation, then the first
person is stopped from denying the truthiness of his statements made earlier.
4 Equitable Estoppel
Estoppel is a product of equity, therefore the Court will have to go by equities on both the sides to
maintain a balance. A man may be stopped, not only from giving particular evidence but also
depending upon that particular argument or contention that the rule of equity does not permit
5 Promissory Estoppel
The history of promissory estoppels can be traced back to England, derived from the principle of
equity. Once a party, by his words or conduct makes a legally binding promise to another party, if the
other party has acted upon these words or conduct, the one who made the promise or gave assurance
cannot revert back to his previous position.
Exceptions to law of estoppel
1 Principle of estoppel does not apply to those matters where both parties have the knowledge of
truthiness
2 Principle of estoppel does not apply against statutes
3 It does not apply to regulations
4 It does not apply to ultra virus orders and decisions
5 This does not apply to question of law
6 It also does not apply to sovereign acts of the government
7 Mere silence is not estoppel
8 The Principle does not apply against misrepresentation of minor.

Difference between Estoppel and

Resjudicata
Estoppel Resjudicata

On the other hand Estoppel results
from the acts of the parties.
In the case of Estoppel, it is the Person who is In case of Res Judicata it is the court that
estopped.
Estoppel shuts the mouth of a person and
prevents him from making contrary
statements.
Estoppel arrises by misrepresentation or
conduct of any person
As we all know the doctrine of Res
Judicata results from the decision of
the court.
ceases to have jurisdiction.
Res Judicata ousts the jurisdiction of the court
and prevents it from deciding over again a
matter already decided upon by a competent
court.
Resjudicata is based on decision of the Court.
Estoppel stops any person from denying the Resjudicata stops the court from hearing such
truthness of their earlier statements in Civil matter which has been already decided by a
matter competent court

Meaning Res means every object of right that forms the subject matter in a particular case. In
Latin, the term Sub-judice means ‘under a judge’ or in other words, a matter ‘under
consideration’. It means a cause that is under trial or pending before a court or judge. The
doctrine of res-judicata prevents the trial of a suit which is already pending in a court of
competent jurisdiction. When the same parties file two or three cases in the same matter, the
competent court has the power to stay proceedings of another court. The primary aim is to
prohibit the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining two parallel
litigations. Nature, Scope and Objective The principle of res sub-judice prevents the court from
proceeding with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is directly or substantially the
same with the previously instituted suit between the same parties and the court where the issue
is previously instituted is pending has the power to grant the relief sought. This rule is
applicable to the trial of the suit and not the institution. It does not restrict the court from passing
interim orders like injunction or stay. However, it applies to revisions and appeals.
The purpose behind this rule is to prevent multiplicity of cases in courts. It is also sought to
prevent the plaintiff from getting two separate decisions from different courts in his favour or two
contradictory judgements. It also ensures to protect the litigant from unnecessary harassment.
The policy of law is to restrict the plaintiff to one legislation, thus obviating the possibility of two
conflicting verdicts by one and the same court in respect of the same relief.

Meaning of suit
The word suit has not been defined anywhere in the Code, but it is a proceeding which is
commenced by presentation of a plaint. In Hansraj Gupta and Ors. Vs. Official Liquidators of the
Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co.Ltd., the Privy Council has defined the expression
“suit” as a civil proceeding instituted by presentation of a suit.

In Pandurang Ramchandra vs. Shantibai Ramchandra, the Supreme Court has stated suit is to
be understood to apply on any proceeding in a court of justice by which an individual pursues
that remedy which the law affords.
Difference between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice
Res Judicata

Res Sub Judice

Res judicata applies to a decided or adjudicated matter.

Res Sub judice applies in a matter which is pending.

It bars the trial of a suit or an issue which has already been decided in a former suit.

It bars trial of a suit which is a pending decision in a previously instituted suit.

Section 11 of the Civil Procedural Code, 1908 deals with res judicata.

Section 10 of the Code exclusively deals with the principle of res sub judice.

Conditions:

A court of competent jurisdiction must have given the decision in the former instituted suit.
The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be same which is directly or substantially in
issue in the former suit.
The parties should be same in both the suits.
The court which gave decision in former suit must be a court of competent jurisdiction.
The parties in the former suit must have litigated under the same title or in other words in the
same capacity.
Conditions:

There must be presence of two suits one which was formerly instituted and other which was
subsequently instituted.
The issues in the subsequent suit should be directly or substantially be the same with the
previous suit.
The parties in both the suits should be same.
The court in which the previous suit was instituted must be a court which has competent
jurisdiction to try such suit.
The title should also be the same in both the suits under which they are litigating
https://blog.ipleaders.in/res-sub-judice-under-cpc-nature-scope-and-objective/
Q4
https://blog.ipleaders.in/review-appeal-revision-all-you-need-to-know-about-it/
Q5
https://blog.ipleaders.in/suits-government-public-officers-official-capacity/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-of-order-33-of-cpc-suits-by-indigent-persons/
Q6
Download- Subject-II
Q1
Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading
Primary tabs
(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) A short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the
court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief; and

(3) A demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or
different types of relief.

(b) Defenses; Admissions and Denials.

(1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party must:

(A) State in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted
against it; and

(B) Admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.

(2) Denials—Responding to the Substance. A denial must fairly respond to the

substance of the allegation.

(3) General and Specific Denials. A party that intends in good faith to deny all the
allegations of a pleading—including the jurisdictional grounds—may do so by a
general denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either
specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those
specifically admitted.
 (4) Denying Part of an Allegation. A party that intends in good faith to deny only part
of an allegation must admit the part that is true and deny the rest.

(5) Lacking Knowledge or Information. A party that lacks knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation must so state, and the
statement has the effect of a denial.

(6) Effect of Failing to Deny. An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of
damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is
not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered
denied or avoided.

© Affirmative Defenses.

(1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any avoidance
or affirmative defense, including:

• accord and satisfaction;

• arbitration and award;

• assumption of risk;

• contributory negligence;

• duress;

• estoppel;

• failure of consideration;

• fraud;

• illegality;
• injury by fellow servant;

• laches;

• license;

• payment;

• release;

• res judicata;

• statute of frauds;

• statute of limitations; and

• waiver.

(2) Mistaken Designation. If a party mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim, or a

counterclaim as a defense, the court must, if justice requires, treat the pleading as
though it were correctly designated, and may impose terms for doing so.

(c) Pleading to Be Concise and Direct; Alternative Statements; Inconsistency.

(1) In General. Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical
form is required.

(2) Alternative Statements of a Claim or Defense. A party may set out 2 or more
statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single
count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements, the
pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient.
 (3) Inconsistent Claims or Defenses. A party may state as many separate claims or
defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.

€ Construing Pleadings. Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice