Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC

“If Every Allegation Of Fact Is Not Denied Specifically… It Shall Be Taken To Be An Admission”, In a significant pronouncement on the law of pleadings, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has reiterated that failure to specifically deny material averments in pleadings amounts to admission in law.

Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that when the respondents failed to deal specifically with the petitioner’s claim regarding the first hiring period, such non-traverse constituted admission under Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court clarified that pleadings are not a matter of formality, and a vague or evasive denial cannot displace a clear factual assertion.

On 11 February 2026, the High Court delivered a reportable judgment addressing a crucial procedural question: whether failure to specifically deny material averments amounts to admission under Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC.

Answering the question in the affirmative, the Court held that in the absence of specific denial, the petitioner’s assertion regarding hiring of the hotel from 18.11.2020 to 05.10.2021 stood admitted in law. The ruling underscores the binding effect of admissions in pleadings and their evidentiary value under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The petitioner hotel was hired by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, for accommodating protected political persons and security forces with effect from 18.11.2020. Though the respondents admitted subsequent hiring at the District level, they conspicuously failed to specifically deal with the petitioner’s claim relating to the first hiring period.

The Court found that neither in the objections nor in response to the supplementary affidavit had the respondents specifically denied the petitioner’s assertion regarding the initial hiring period.

This omission became central to the adjudication.

Effect of Non-Specific Denial

The core question before the Court was whether a party can avoid liability by merely offering a general or evasive denial without specifically traversing material facts pleaded by the opposite party.

Justice Sekhri examined Order VIII Rule 3 CPC, which mandates that a defendant must specifically deal with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth. Rule 5 further provides that every allegation of fact not denied specifically or by necessary implication shall be taken to be admitted.

The Court observed: “It is not sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to make a general denial of the grounds alleged by the plaintiff… if every allegation of fact in the plaint is not denied specifically or by necessary implication, it shall be taken to be an admission.”

Admission As Substantive Evidence

The Court went a step further by linking the principle of non-traverse to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that facts admitted need not be proved.

Justice Sekhri emphasized:

“It is also settled in law that facts admitted need not be proved in terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act and a party’s admission is substantive evidence ex proprio vigore.”

The Court also referred to Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, (2005) 11 SCC 279, reiterating that admissions may be inferred from pleadings and surrounding circumstances, and courts are empowered under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to pass judgment on such admissions.

Court’s Conclusion on the Point

Applying these principles, the Court held that since the respondents failed to deny the petitioner’s claim regarding the first hiring period from 18.11.2020 to 05.10.2021, the same stood admitted in law.

The Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to relief for that period without requiring further proof, as the admission arising from non-traverse was sufficient to establish liability.

Significance of the Ruling

This judgment serves as a cautionary precedent for litigants, particularly State authorities, that pleadings must be precise and specific. A general denial or silence on a material fact may operate as an admission with binding consequences.

The ruling reinforces three settled yet often overlooked principles:

“Specific denial is mandatory under Order VIII Rule 3 CPC.”

“Non-denial amounts to admission under Rule 5.”

“Admitted facts need not be proved under Section 58 of the Evidence Act.”

By treating procedural compliance as substantive justice, the Court reaffirmed that pleadings are the foundation of litigation and that silence, in law, can amount to acceptance.

Date of Decision: 11.02.2026