https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285596 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. en-us Wed, 01 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:49:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285596 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285596