Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Mandatory Nature of Order 6 Rule 2(3) CPC - The provision requires that sums and numbers in pleadings be expressed both in figures and in words as necessary. Several sources emphasize that Order 6 Rule 2(3) is a mandatory rule for proper pleadings, and non-compliance can lead to the pleadings being defective or even rejected. For example, it states, every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts ["Hrishikesh s/o Satyajit Wachasundar VS Vidushi, d/o. Prakash Agrawal, through her Power of Attorney Holder Shri Vedant, s/o. Prakash Agrawal - Bombay"], and the provision of Order 6, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, is placed in submitting that the said provision mandates against the specific pleading to be advanced in respect of any provision of law ["Orissa State Textile Corporation. Ltd. VS Bhaskar Tea Company Ltd. - Orissa"].
Effect of Not Stating the Amount in Words - The failure to state the transaction amount in words, despite mentioning figures, is generally viewed as a non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Order 6 Rule 2(3). Such non-compliance can render pleadings defective, and in some cases, courts have held that this can lead to rejection of the pleadings or suit. For instance, Order 6 Rule 2 requires that 'dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in figures' in the plaint and also in the written statement ["NARENDRA NATH NANDI VS AMIYA CHOUDHURY - Calcutta"]. Additionally, the suit filed by the plaintiff is defective because of non-compliance of section 16(c) which is a mandatory provision ["Bhikaram Nathuji Vanjari & another VS Saraswati Motilal Zarkariya - Bombay"], indicating that omission of essential details like amount in words can impact the maintainability of the case.
Analysis and Conclusion - The provisions of Order 6 Rule 2(3) CPC are mandatory in nature, as evidenced by judicial pronouncements emphasizing that pleadings must strictly comply with the requirement to state sums and numbers in both figures and words. Non-statement of the amount in words, despite mentioning figures, can lead to pleadings being considered defective or liable for rejection, affecting the progress of the case. Therefore, parties must ensure compliance with this rule to avoid adverse legal consequences.
In civil litigation, the foundation of any case lies in the pleadings. But what happens when key details are missing? A common query among litigants is: whether the provision of Order 6 Rule 2(3) CPC is mandatory in nature. What will be the effect of non-stating the amount of transaction in words? This question strikes at the heart of procedural compliance under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
Order 6 Rule 2(3) requires parties to plead all material facts concisely to establish a cause of action or defense. Failing to do so, including specifics like transaction amounts, can jeopardize your case. This post delves into the mandatory nature of this rule, its implications, and practical takeaways, drawing from judicial precedents. Note: This is general information; consult a legal professional for advice tailored to your situation.
Order 6 governs pleadings in civil suits. Rule 2(3) mandates that every pleading shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. Udhav Singh VS Madhav Rao Scindia - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 413
Material facts are the primary, essential facts forming the cause of action—like the who, what, when, and how of a transaction. For instance, in a suit involving a monetary transaction, stating the amount not just in figures but in words might be seen as a material particular supporting the fact of the transaction. Courts emphasize completeness to avoid surprises at trial and ensure fair adjudication.
As held, all the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence are 'material facts'. Udhav Singh VS Madhav Rao Scindia - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 413
Yes, the provision is peremptory and mandatory. Courts cannot overlook non-compliance, even with party consent or delay (laches). The rule's language uses imperative terms, binding the court to act.
In election petitions, analogous to civil suits, merely quoting statutory words like chanting of a mantra does not amount to stating material facts. KIRTIKUMAR DATTATRAY SHIVSHARAN vs JAI SIDDHESWAR SHIVACHARY MAHASWAMIJI - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7098Mohan Kumar B., S/o Basetty G. vs Shobha Karandlaje, D/O Late Monappa Gowda - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 583
Similarly, under Order 7 Rule 11, plaints lacking material facts are rejected mandatorily. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint 'shall' be rejected if any of the grounds specified... Mohan Kumar B., S/o Basetty G. vs Shobha Karandlaje, D/O Late Monappa Gowda - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 583
Understanding this divide is key:
| Aspect | Material Facts | Material Particulars ||--------|----------------|----------------------|| Definition | Essential primary facts forming cause of action (e.g., transaction occurred for Rs. X). Udhav Singh VS Madhav Rao Scindia - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 413 | Supporting details (e.g., exact date, mode of payment, or stating amount in words). || Pleading Requirement | Mandatory under Rule 2(3); omission fatal. | Required under Rule 4 for conditions like fraud; amendable sometimes. || Consequence of Omission | Pleadings rejected/stuck off. | May allow supplementation, but not if core fact missing. Udhav Singh VS Madhav Rao Scindia - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 413 |
Failure in material facts compromises the entire case. For transaction amounts, not stating in words might be a particular, but if it obscures the fact (e.g., ambiguous figure), it risks rejection. In rent default suits, Order 6 Rule 4 CPC mandates that all particulars in respect of wilful default shall have to be stated in the pleading. Phool Chand VS Dr. Gulab Chand - 1999 Supreme(Raj) 960
Not stating the transaction amount in words can signal incomplete pleadings, especially if it leads to ambiguity.
In benami transaction challenges, incomplete pleadings under Order 6 Rule 2 led to scrutiny under Order 7 Rule 11. MAHIPAL SINGH RAWAT VS STATE OF U. P. For unregistered firms, There must be necessary pleadings averments to state material facts as required under Order 6 Rule 2... AKSHARAY DEVELOPERS vs SHIV DEVELOPERS - 2018 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 5114
If the amount omission hides the cause (e.g., undervalued claim), expect Order 7 Rule 11(a) rejection for no cause of action.
Courts strictly enforce this:
Other contexts reinforce: In execution sales, mandatory rules like Order 21 Rule 69(2) void proceedings if ignored. Purushothaman VS Ranganathan (deceased) - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 1578 Order 39 Rule 3 violations are mandatory but assessed judiciously. Institute for Inner Studies VS Charlotte Anderson - 2014 Supreme(Del) 107
In partnership suits, non-registration bars suits absent proper pleadings. AKSHARAY DEVELOPERS vs SHIV DEVELOPERS - 2018 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 5114
To safeguard your case:- Plead Comprehensively: Include all material facts upfront, stating transaction amounts clearly (figures and words for precision).- Distinguish Facts from Evidence: Facts yes; proof later.- Anticipate Objections: Use Order 6 Rule 16 to strike opponent defects.- Seek Amendments Early: Before limitation bars.
Plead all material facts clearly and comprehensively to avoid dismissal or rejection. Udhav Singh VS Madhav Rao Scindia - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 413
Order 6 Rule 2(3) CPC is unequivocally mandatory. Omitting key details like transaction amounts in words risks fatal defects, leading to rejection without remedy. Courts prioritize procedural rigor to uphold justice.
Key Takeaways:- Material facts are non-negotiable.- Non-compliance invites dismissal, waivable by none.- Precision prevents pitfalls.
This underscores diligent drafting. While precedents guide, outcomes vary by facts—always seek expert counsel. Stay informed on CPC updates for stronger litigation strategies.
References include judgments like Udhav Singh VS Madhav Rao Scindia - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 413, KIRTIKUMAR DATTATRAY SHIVSHARAN vs JAI SIDDHESWAR SHIVACHARY MAHASWAMIJI - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7098, Phool Chand VS Dr. Gulab Chand - 1999 Supreme(Raj) 960, among others cited.
#CPCIndia, #LegalPleadings, #Order6Rule2
sums and numbers in the pleadings in figures as well as in words as required by Order 6 Rule 2 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which came to be marked as Exhibit 15. ... As such, I do not see any reasons to discuss those judgments relied on by the Counsel for respondent wherein it is discussed whether Order 37, Rule 2(1) is mandatory or directory non-compliance....
Issues Nos 3 to 5 refer to the above said pleadings of the non-applicant. On 23-12-1969 an application under Order 14, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code was filed on behalf of the applicant to the effect that issues Nos. 3 to 5 should not be tried as they were irrelevant. ... Thus, what is obtainable from the aforesaid provisions (Order 14, Rule 1 and Order 6, Rule 2....
... In this connection, provision of Order-6, Rule-2, C.P.C. is placed in submitting that the said provision mandates against the specific pleading to be advanced in respect of any provision of law when the Trial Court has completely misread in stating that provision of law needs to ... In this connection, 'et us have a short survey of the provision under Order-6#HL_END....
George Fernandez [(1969) 3 SCC 238 : (1969) 3 SCR 603: (AIR 1969 SC 1201)], Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari [(1969) 2 SCC 433: (AIR 1970 SC 276)]. Merely quoting the words of the section like chanting of a mantra does not amount to stating material facts. ... Like the Code of Civil Procedure, this section also envisages a distinction between 'material facts' and 'material particulars'. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) corresponds to Order #HL_....
(1969) 3 SCC 238 : (1969) 3 SCR 603: (AIR 1969 SC 1201)], Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari [(1969) 2 SCC 433: (AIR 1970 SC 276)]. Merely quoting the words of the section like chanting of a mantra does not amount to stating material facts. ... This Court noticed that it has been laid down by this Court that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 may lead to dismissal of the petition if the matter falls within the scope of Order #HL_S....
In the above factual background petitioner-defendant filed an application dated 3.6.2013 in the aforesaid suit, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, on two counts. ... 6. ... Order 6 Rule 2(1) of the Code states the basic and cardinal rule of pleadings and declares that the pleading has to state material facts and not the evidence. ... Odhams Press Ltd.6 in the following passage: (All E....
Section 69 of the Act read with Order 30 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C., the suit itself is not maintainable. ... There must be necessary pleadings averments to state material facts as required under Order 6 Rule 2 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ... Now in view of the provision contained under Order 30 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 69 #HL_STA....
(1969) 3 SCC 238 : (1969) 3 SCR 603], Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari [(1969) 2 SCC 433].) Merely quoting the words of the section like chanting of a mantra does not amount to stating material facts. ... The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause (a) to (e) are made out. ... which read....
Rule 5 and has no bearing on the question of the effect of non-compliance with Order 5, Rule 5. ... For example Order 6, Rule 2 requires that "dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in figures" in the plaint and also in the written statement. ... For final disposal of the suit. 2. For ascertaining whether the suit would be contested, and 3. For settlement of issues. The purpo....
According to Order 6 Rule 4 CPC the plaint must contain averments indicating with reasonable definiteness what the nature of default is. The word 'material' means the facts necessary to form a complete cause of action. ... Rule 4 of Order 6 CPC mandates that all particulars in respect of wilful default shall have to be stated in the pleading. ... A complete reading of the judgment reveals that provisions contained in Orde....
The word used in Rule 69(2) of CPC., “shall be made” and as such, the provision is mandatory in nature. 10. While Rule 69(1) CPC., empowers the Execution Court to adjourn the sale, Rule 69(2) CPC., mandates the Execution Court to issue a fresh proclamation, if the adjournment is more than 30 days. As such, the Execution Court ought to have issued a fresh proclamation under Order 21 Rule 67 of CPC., before venturing to sell the property in Court auction. It is not in dispute that the sale was made after the expiry of 30 days from the date of proclamation of the sale.
3. Whether the learned lower appellate Court can frame and decide an issue ipso facto without calling for a report or recording of a fresh evidence from the trial Court? Whether the learned lower appellate Court could reverse the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on a point which was neither pressed or claimed in issue by defendant/respondents? 2. Whether the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 CPC are mandatory or directory in nature? 4. Whether judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court while reversing a well reasoned and detailed judgment and ....
It is the judicious approach which the court has to adopt while seeing the facts of each case in order to infer in which case there exists violation of the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and in which case there is no such violation in true sense but the ground is urged only on hyper technicalities. The reason for the same is plain and simple which is that it is true that the provisions of the Order 39 Rule 3 CPC are mandatory in nature, but the consequence of its non compliance is not provided explicitly in the code of civil procedure. In the later kind of cases, the cou....
Whether the judgment of the first appellate Court is defective for non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC? Whether the Courts below are correct in law, in refusing the relief even without discussing the probative value of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the defendants?
The provision of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. is also mandatory in nature. However, the Supreme Court has held that still the Court has got jurisdiction and discretion to accept the written statement even after expiry of 90 days from the date of service of summon on payment heavy cost. Defence has been struck off due to some irregularity in deposit of the monthly rent, under the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. The same principle may apply to the cases under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
