Failure To Specifically Deny Material Facts In Pleadings Deems Them Admitted By Implication Under CPC: J&K And Ladakh High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri directed the Union Territory administration to clear a Srinagar-based hotel’s outstanding accommodation and catering dues within eight weeks, with 6% annual interest in case of default, and set aside the order constituting a bill-verification committee as well as its ex parte report. The petition concerned payments claimed for rooms and services provided after the administration requisitioned the hotel to house protected persons and security personnel. The Court held that when a respondent does not specifically answer material factual assertions in the pleadings, those facts stand admitted by implication under Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and found the administration’s reliance on a unilateral verification exercise insufficient to defeat the claim.
The petitioner, a hotel, invoked writ jurisdiction seeking clearance of pending liabilities towards hiring of its premises for protected political persons and security personnel. Pursuant to circular dated 07.11.2020 and communication dated 12.12.2020 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, the hotel was hired with effect from 18.11.2020. The accommodation was de-hired with effect from 05.10.2021, but was subsequently re-hired at the District level by the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, from 27.10.2021. The petitioner raised bills for both periods of hiring.
The petitioner contended that despite verification and approval of charges, payments were withheld on the basis of an ex-parte report of a Bill Verification Committee constituted by order dated 05.11.2022. It alleged violation of principles of natural justice and termed the committee’s constitution a colorable exercise of power.
The respondents admitted the hiring but disputed the quantum of claims, asserting that inflated bills amounting to Rs. 40,74,665/- were scrutinized by a committee, which approved only Rs. 89,736/- as per actual occupancy. The petitioner challenged the report dated 10.02.2023 and sought quashment of the committee’s order.
The Court observed, “As uncontroverted factual narration of the case, emerging from a perusal of communication dated 12.12.2020 of Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, annexed with the petition, would unfold 14 Hotels, including the petitioner Hotel came to be hired w.e.f. 18.11.2020, for protected persons, on sharing basis, including the security forces, who were assigned the duty of providing round the clock security to the said protectees.”
It further observed, “In terms of Order VIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to make a general denial of the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, he is required to specifically deal with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth and it is a settled principle of law of pleadings that if every allegation of fact in the plaint is not denied specifically or by necessary implication, it shall be taken to be an admission in terms of Rule 5 of Order VIII of the Code.”
The Court stated, “where admission of fact is made in the pleadings or otherwise, the Court at any stage of the proceedings has the jurisdiction to pass such order or give such judgment as it needs fit, having regard to such admission.” It also recorded, “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.”
Regarding the first claim, the Court observed, “same having not been denied by the respondents amounts to admission and petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for.”
On the second claim, the Court stated, “There is difference between a fact-finding committee and Bill Verification Committee.” It recorded, “The claimant, in the circumstances and for the purpose for which the Committee is constituted, is to be accorded a right of hearing to submit explanations during the process of verification of bills, particularly when Committee proposes or intends to reject or reduce the claim.” It added, “Principle of Audi alteram partem applies with full force if the rejection of a bill is based on allegations of fraud or misconduct or that claim is inflated.”
The Court further observed, “it nowhere indicates that petitioner, at any point of time, was associated with the verification of bills or was asked to produce evidence of actual occupancy to justify its claim.” It concluded on this aspect by recording, “Under these circumstances, it is not open to the respondents, at this length of time, to dispute the claim of the petitioner.”
The Court directed, “For what has been observed and discussed above, present petition is allowed and order dated 05.11.2022, by virtue of which respondents constituted a Committee for verification of Bills and ex-parte report dated 10.02.2023 of the said Committee are quashed. Respondents are directed to liquidate claims of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this judgment is made available, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sohail Mehraj, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Mr. Illyas Laway, GA
Case Title: Hotel New Metro v/s UT of J&K & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: JKLHC-SGR:15
Case Number: WP(C) No. 590/2023
Bench: Justice Rajesh Sekhri
