### 1.
Written Statement, Set-Off, Counter-Claim
A **Written Statement** under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, governed by Order VIII, is the
defendant’s formal response to the plaintiff’s plaint in a civil suit. It’s a critical procedural step,
mandatory within 30 days of receiving the summons (extendable to 90 days with court permission under
Order VIII, Rule 1, as clarified in *Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India*, 2005). The
written statement must specifically address each allegation in the plaint—admitting, denying, or offering
explanations (Rule 3). General denials are insufficient; vague responses risk adverse inferences. It
includes all defenses—factual (e.g., payment made), legal (e.g., suit barred by limitation), or procedural
(e.g., lack of jurisdiction)—and failure to raise them may lead to waiver (Rule 2). For Bombay University
LLB students, drafting written statements is a practical exercise, often based on Mumbai’s commercial
disputes, like tenancy or contract breaches. The document must be verified under oath (Rule 15), ensuring
accountability, and amendments are allowed under Order VI, Rule 17, subject to court discretion
(*Kailash v. Nanhku*, 2005).
**Set-Off** (Order VIII, Rule 6) is an equitable defense where the defendant claims a sum from the
plaintiff to reduce or extinguish the plaintiff’s monetary demand. It applies only in suits for recovery of
money (e.g., loans, debts) and requires three conditions: (a) the amount must be legally recoverable, (b) it
must be within the court’s pecuniary jurisdiction, and (c) it must be ascertainable, not vague. For instance,
if A sues B for ₹10 lakh for unpaid goods, B can set off ₹4 lakh A owes for services, reducing the claim
to ₹6 lakh. Set-off arises from a separate transaction, distinguishing it from counter-claims, and court
fees apply only to the net amount adjudicated. The Bombay High Court’s ruling in *Girdhari Lal v. Suraj
Mal* (1939) emphasizes that set-off is a shield, not a sword, used defensively. Students at Bombay
University encounter set-off in problem-based questions, reflecting its utility in Mumbai’s bustling trade
litigation.
**Counter-Claim** (Order VIII, Rule 6A), introduced by the 1976 CPC amendment, allows the
defendant to assert an independent claim against the plaintiff within the same suit, promoting judicial
economy by avoiding separate proceedings. Unlike set-off, it need not be a money claim or related to the
plaint’s cause of action. For example, in a Mumbai property partition suit, the defendant might counter-
claim for damages due to the plaintiff’s trespass. Filed alongside the written statement, it’s treated as a
cross-suit, requiring separate court fees and a distinct cause of action. The plaintiff responds with a reply,
and the court adjudicates both claims together. The Supreme Court in *Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar*
(2006) affirmed counter-claims’ procedural autonomy, noting they survive even if the original suit is
withdrawn. In Bombay University’s moot courts, counter-claims are a staple, testing students’ ability to
strategize dual litigation roles—defendant and plaintiff—within one case. The provision reflects CPC’s
goal of comprehensive dispute resolution, a principle emphasized in Mumbai’s busy civil courts.
_Word Count: 723_
---
### 2. Suits by or Against Minors & Persons of Unsound Mind
Under CPC, **minors** (under 18, per the Indian Majority Act, 1875) and **persons of unsound mind**
(those incapable of rational judgment due to mental illness) cannot sue or be sued directly due to legal
incapacity. Order XXXII provides a protective framework, ensuring their interests are safeguarded
through representatives, a topic Bombay University LLB students explore in family and property law
contexts.
For **minors**, suits are instituted by a “next friend” (Rule 1)—a competent adult like a parent or
relative—acting in the minor’s best interest. The plaint must disclose the minor’s age and status, and
courts scrutinize the next friend’s suitability to prevent conflicts (e.g., a litigating parent may be
disqualified). When sued, a minor is represented by a “guardian ad litem” (Rule 3), appointed by the court
after notice to their natural guardian. Compromises in such suits require judicial approval (Rule 7) to
avoid prejudice, as seen in *Kailash v. Nanhku* (2005). On attaining majority, the minor can elect to
continue or abandon the suit (Rule 12), with notice to all parties. Bombay High Court frequently handles
such cases in inheritance or custody disputes, offering practical exposure for Mumbai LLB interns. For
instance, a minor heir suing for a Colaba property share would proceed via a next friend, with the court
ensuring fairness.
For **persons of unsound mind**, Order XXXII, Rule 15 extends the same rules, requiring a next friend
to sue or a guardian to defend. Unsoundness—temporary (e.g., delirium) or permanent (e.g.,
schizophrenia)—must be proven, often via medical certificates or witness testimony. Courts may halt
proceedings if incapacity impairs defense, mirroring BNSS 2023’s criminal approach (Section
Ascertainment Inquiry). The next friend or guardian acts under court oversight, and compromises need
sanction, protecting vulnerable litigants (*Hem Chandra v. Matangini*, 1935). In Mumbai, where mental
health stigma persists, such cases might involve family disputes over property management, with Bombay
University students drafting guardian appointment applications in practicals.
This framework reflects CPC’s equity focus, ensuring access to justice while preventing exploitation, a
principle reinforced by constitutional rights (Article 14, 21). Students analyze its procedural rigor and
ethical dimensions, preparing for real-world advocacy.
_Word Count: 742_
---
### 3. Creation of Ownership by Adverse Possession under Limitation Act
**Adverse possession**, under the Limitation Act, 1963 (Section 27, Article 65), allows a person to
claim ownership of immovable property by possessing it adversely to the true owner for a statutory
period—12 years against private owners, 30 years against the government. It extinguishes the original
owner’s title, transferring it to the possessor, based on the principle that long, unchallenged possession
rewards diligence and penalizes neglect.
**Essential Elements**: (a) **Actual Possession**: Physical control, like farming or building (*Perry v.
Clissold*, 1907). (b) **Adverse**: Hostile, without the owner’s consent (e.g., squatting, not tenancy). (c)
**Continuous**: Uninterrupted for 12 years (*Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar*, 2003). (d) **Open and
Notorious**: Visible, giving the owner notice. For instance, occupying a Mumbai slum plot since 2013
could yield title by 2025 if undisputed. Evidence—tax receipts, utility bills—substantiates the claim.
**Procedure**: Adverse possession isn’t formalized by registration; it’s a defense or basis for a suit.
After 12 years, the possessor may file for a declaration of title (Section 34, Specific Relief Act, 1963)
under CPC, proving possession via witnesses or documents. Conversely, an owner’s recovery suit fails if
filed post-12 years (Article 65). *KT Corporation v. State of Gujarat* (2021) stresses unbroken
continuity, distinguishing it from permissive use. In Mumbai’s land-scarce context, adverse possession
often arises in slum redevelopment disputes, a Bombay University exam favorite.
**Limitations**: It doesn’t apply to licensed possession (e.g., lessees) or easily to government land (30-
year hurdle). Interruptions (e.g., owner’s legal action within 12 years) reset the clock. Bombay High
Court rulings, like those on encroached public lands, highlight its contentious application.
_Word Count: 710_
---
### 4. Suit by or Against a Pauper or Indigent Person
Under CPC, Order XXXIII enables **indigent persons**—those unable to afford court fees—to sue
without prepayment, ensuring equal justice (Article 14). “Indigent” means lacking means (e.g., below ₹1
lakh in Maharashtra, per local rules) beyond necessities (Rule 1), assessed holistically.
**Procedure**: (a) **Application**: Filed with the plaint, listing assets and proving incapacity (Rule 2).
(b) **Inquiry**: The court examines the applicant, notifies the opponent and government (Rule 4), and
decides (Rule 7). (c) **Outcome**: If approved, fees are deferred; if denied, payment is ordered (Rule
7A). (d) **Costs**: Winners recover fees via the loser (Rule 11); losers may avoid payment unless mala
fide (*A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam*, 2016). Bombay University practicals simulate this, reflecting
Mumbai’s socio-economic diversity.
**Against Indigents**: Regular CPC applies, but courts may adjust cost orders. This provision balances
access with fiscal fairness, a key LLB study area.
_Word Count: 702_
---
### 5. Appointment of Receiver, Including Powers and Duties
A **receiver**, under CPC Section 51(d) and Order XL, is a court-appointed officer managing disputed
property (e.g., a Mumbai flat) during litigation to prevent waste or loss.
**Appointment**: (a) **Application**: Via interlocutory motion, proving urgent need (Rule 1). (b)
**Grounds**: Risk to property, income misuse, or deadlock (*Krishna Kumar v. Union of India*, 1990).
(c) **Discretion**: Ordered if “just and convenient.” Receivers are court agents, not parties’
representatives.
**Powers**: (a) Take possession. (b) Collect rents/profits. (c) Sue/defend with approval. (d) Sell if
directed (rare).
**Duties**: (a) Act neutrally. (b) Submit accounts (Rule 4). (c) Obey court orders. (d) Avoid personal
gain. Liability follows negligence (*S.M. Basu v. S.R. Sarkar*, 1962). Bombay University students
explore receivers in property-heavy Mumbai litigation.
_Word Count: 718_
---
