Ravinoran And Another v. Soysa And Another – sllr 2005 volume 3 page 056

In the case between Ravinoran and Another (Plaintiff) and Soysa and Another (Defendant), the court addressed the sufficiency of general denials in an answer under Section 75 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was determined that each averment in the plaint must be specifically admitted or denied, and a general denial does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The failure to expressly deny an averment is construed as an admission of that fact. The findings established reliance on precedents such as Fernando v. Samarasekera and others, reinforcing the statutory interpretation that specific responses are mandatory to prevent deemed admissions. This decision clarifies the pleading standard for answers, emphasizing that effective denials must be explicit and particularized.

Somawansa J. — It wa