Specific denial in pleadings required before an issue can be framed on a material agency allegation.

Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 CPC require a defendant to specifically deny each material allegation, and Order XIV Rule 1 permits an issue only where a material proposition is affirmatively asserted and denied. A blanket denial may be sufficient for introductory or subsidiary matters, but not for facts forming the foundation of the cause of action. The averment that defendants No. 2 acted for and on behalf of defendants No. 1 was treated as an essential fact, and a mere non-admission did not amount to the specific traverse needed to justify issue-framing. The proposed issue was therefore refused because the agency plea had not been specifically denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether a comprehensive denial in the written statement was sufficient to deny the plaintiff's averment that defendants No. 2 acted on behalf of defendants No. 1, and whether a mere non-admission of that material fact could justify framing an issue.

Analysis: Order VIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a defendant to deal specifically with each allegation of fact not admitted. Order VIII Rule 5 provides that an allegation not specifically denied or denied by necessary implication is deemed admitted. Order XIV Rule 1 requires a distinct issue only when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. A blanket denial may suffice for subsidiary or introductory matters, but not for facts constituting the foundation of the cause of action. The averment that defendants No. 2 acted for and on behalf of defendants No. 1 was treated as part of the essential factual basis of the claim against defendants No. 1. A mere non-admission does not amount to the specific denial required to support the framing of an issue, and the rules governing issue-framing cannot override the pleading requirements.

Conclusion: The comprehensive denial did not amount to a specific denial of the agency averment, and no issue could properly be framed on that fact.

Final Conclusion: The request to frame the proposed issue was refused because the pleaded agency fact had not been specifically traversed.

Ratio Decidendi: Material facts constituting the gist of the action must be specifically denied in the written statement; a general denial or mere non-admission is insufficient to require an issue to be framed on that fact.

---