Civil Procedure Code, 1908 | Order VI - Pleadings
Order VI Rule 13 CPC: Presumptions of Law in Pleadings
Order VI Rule 13 explains when a party need not plead a fact that the law already presumes in that party's favour or for which the burden of proof rests on the opposing party.
Order VI Rule 13 CPC - Statutory text
Presumptions of law.
Neither party need in any pleading allege any matter of fact which the law presumes in his favour or as to which the burden of proof lies upon the other side unless the same has first been specifically denied (e.g., consideration for a bill of exchange where the plaintiff sues only on the bill and not for the consideration as a substantive ground of claim).
This rule appears in Order VI (Pleadings) of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It concerns the contents of a plaint or written statement; it does not itself create a new presumption.
Meaning of Order 6 Rule 13 CPC
A presumption of law is a legal rule directing a court to presume a fact when the statutory conditions are met, subject to the nature of that presumption. Burden of proof describes which party must establish a fact or issue under the applicable law.
Rule 13 avoids unnecessary allegations in pleadings. A litigant ordinarily need not separately assert every fact already presumed in their favour, or a fact the other side must prove. The rule expressly qualifies this convenience where the matter has first been specifically denied.
For example, a plaintiff should still plead the essential facts that make up the cause of action, even where the law supplies a presumption about an associated matter. A presumption is not a substitute for stating the material facts necessary to identify the dispute.
Practical examples of presumptions in pleadings
1. Consideration for a bill of exchange
The illustration in Rule 13 concerns a plaintiff suing on a bill of exchange. Where the suit is founded on the instrument itself, the plaintiff generally need not plead consideration as an independent substantive cause of action merely because the instrument involves consideration. The statutory presumption regarding consideration for negotiable instruments is subject to the applicable law and rebuttal.
2. A fact for which the defendant bears the burden
Suppose a defendant relies on a particular affirmative defence and must establish its factual basis. The plaintiff ordinarily does not have to anticipate and negate every possible defence in the plaint. If a material matter is specifically put in issue, the pleadings and proof must be considered under the relevant procedural and evidentiary rules.
3. A specifically denied presumption
If the opposing party specifically denies a fact that would otherwise be presumed, the qualification in Rule 13 matters. The party relying on that fact should consider whether a responsive pleading or permitted amendment is needed. Whether the presumption continues to operate, and what evidence rebuts it, depend on the governing statute.
Relationship with burden of proof and the law of evidence
Order VI Rule 13 regulates pleading, not the final decision on admissibility, evidentiary weight or proof. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in force from 1 July 2024, provides the general modern framework for evidence in proceedings to which it applies, while special statutes may prescribe their own presumptions.
For negotiable instruments, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 addresses specified presumptions, including consideration, until the contrary is proved. A presumption of this kind should not be confused with an irrebuttable conclusion or an automatic entitlement to a decree.
How Rule 13 works with other pleading provisions
Order VI Rule 2 CPC requires concise statements of material facts rather than evidence. Rule 13 complements that requirement by preventing needless repetition of matters presumed by law. Order VI Rule 12 CPC deals with pleading implied contracts or relationships, while Order VI Rule 17 CPC concerns amendment of pleadings, subject to its statutory conditions.
The court may also examine admissions and denials under Order VIII CPC. Rule 13 should not be read as permission to omit essential cause-of-action facts or to disregard a specific denial.
Official law references and related CPC pages
- India Code - official central legislation database (search for the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Act 5 of 1908, and Order VI Rule 13).
- India Code - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (search for Act 47 of 2023).
- India Code - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (search for Section 118).
- Code of Civil Procedure: sections, orders and rules.
Frequently asked questions
What is Order VI Rule 13 CPC?
It allows a party to omit from a pleading facts presumed by law in that party's favour or facts on which the burden of proof lies on the opposite party, unless specifically denied.
Does Rule 13 remove the burden of proving disputed facts?
No. It concerns what must be pleaded. The applicable law of evidence and the issues framed by the court determine what must ultimately be proved.
What happens if a presumed fact is specifically denied?
The exception in Rule 13 becomes relevant. A party should then address the disputed matter in the appropriate pleading, subject to procedural rules.
Does every presumption operate conclusively?
No. Legal presumptions may be rebuttable or conclusive depending on the governing statute. Rule 13 does not change their legal effect.