ORDER Sulaiman, C.J.
1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes. The plaintiff sued on the strength of two bonds which were ostensibly executed after an interval of 14 months. The plaintiff beside examining himself, produced one witness whose demeanour did not impress the Court and he did not produce the other witness who was a patwari. The defendant is an ignorant widow and she denied the execution of the bonds and the receipt of consideration. The execution and consideration were not admitted in the written statement and on oath she emphatically denied them. The Court below has held that in such circumstances it lay heavily on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the bonds and the advance of consideration for them and has then held: "In my opinion, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden." I am not concerned with the reasons given by the Judge for not believing the plaintiff and his witness. The finding of fact must be accepted. It is also not necessary to point out that the learned Judge, having examined the writings on the two documents and the ink and the pen used, was inclined to the view that they both had been written about the same-time although they appeared to have been separated in point of time by about 14 months.
2. The only other point urged on behalf of the applicant is that the plea in the written statement that the allegations contained in the plaint were not admitted was wholly insufficient under Order 8, Rule 5, was unhappy but punctuation marks cannot control the meaning of the section. In construing a statute a Court of law is bound to read it without the commas inserted in the print. Levis Pagh v. Ashutosh Sen AIR 1929 PC 69. The Maharani of Bardwan v. Krishna Kamini Dabi (1887) 14 Cal 365. I am of opinion that it could not have been intended by the legislature that there a defendant states in the written statement that a certain allegation is not admitted he shall be taken to have admitted that allegation. I think the rule should be really read as follows:
Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or if not denied by necessary implication or if not stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability.
3. If a recital in the written statement that a certain allegation is not admitted were to be deemed to be an admission, then denial by necessary implication referred to in the rule would have no meaning. I am therefore clearly of opinion that the defendant had in the written statement denied the execution and receipt of consideration when she specifically stated that she did not admit them. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs.