VT Ltd. instituted a suit against KA Furnitures Ltd. for breach of contract for supply of 200 study tables priced at ₹500 per table, on the following three counts: (i) KA Furnitures Ltd. did not supply full order within

It is necessary that one has to deny the averment of the plaint/petition which are incorrect or false. In case any averment contained in any paragraph of the plaint is not denied specifically, it is then presumed to have been admitted by the other party. (Order 8, Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure). It must be borne in mind that the denial has to be specific and not evasive or general. (Order 8, Rules 3 & 4 of CPC). This has been reiterated in Dalvir Singh Dhilowal v. Kanwaljit Singh 2002 (1) Civil LJ 245 (P&H); Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co. AIR 1964 SC 538. However, general allegation in the plaint cannot be said to be admitted because of general denial in written statement. [Union v. A. Pandurang, AIR 1962 SC 630.] It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages. Thus, where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. In the light of the above, the general refutation and denial made by KA Furniture Ltd. against the specific averments of VT Ltd are not valid.