14 Drafting Templates Every Indian Advocate Keeps on Hand

11 May 2026 — Nowlez Team

A template is a baseline, not a finished draft. The fastest way to lose a matter at the threshold is to file a copied-verbatim plaint that misses a jurisdiction clause, a verification, or a court-specific format rule. The careful way to use templates is the way an experienced advocate uses them — as a scaffold that captures the standard skeleton, leaving the specific facts, cause of action, and jurisdictional drafting to actual thought.

This post covers the 14 drafting templates that recur across Indian civil and criminal practice, what each is for, the customisation that distinguishes a working draft from a copy-paste filing, and the criteria that separate a defensible template source from a risky one. It is written as a practitioner reference — not a download-and-file list.

Why templates matter (and where they go wrong)

A working chamber files dozens of similar pleadings across a term. Without baseline templates, each plaint, written statement, or bail application starts from a blank page even when the structural skeleton is identical to the one drafted three weeks ago. Good templates eliminate that redundant structural work and compress non-strategic drafting time by roughly 60–80%.

When all juniors and paralegals work from the same structural baselines, internal review becomes faster: a senior reading a plaint drafted from the chamber's template already knows where the cause-of-action section sits, where the prayer appears, where the verification is. Consistency reduces friction for reviewing advocates and for the registry clerk processing filings.

Templates also encode court-specific format requirements: paper size, font, paragraph numbering, mandatory headings, signature block placement. A pleading that violates a High Court's presentation rules can be returned at the filing window before a judge sees it.

Where templates go wrong:

• Verbatim copying: every field is a substitution point. Filing a plaint with the previous client's name still in the cause-title is the clearest failure mode.
• Stale section numbers: templates predating the July 2024 criminal-law transition (BNSS replacing CrPC, BNS replacing IPC, BSA replacing the Evidence Act) carry wrong references. A bail application citing old CrPC sections when BNSS applies is substantively incorrect.
• Missing or generic verification clauses: the verification must match the specific facts deposed to; a generic block lifted from another matter is a procedural defect.
• Jurisdiction left unchecked: pecuniary, territorial, and subject-matter jurisdiction are matter-specific. A jurisdiction clause that worked for one client is unverified for the next.

The template is the scaffold. The work is what the advocate builds on it.

The 14 templates, by case type

Civil pleadings

1. Plaint (Order VII CPC) The primary civil originating document. Order VII prescribes mandatory particulars: parties, facts constituting the cause of action, the court's jurisdiction, the relief sought, and court-fee valuation. The most-missed customisation is the cause-of-action paragraph — the template gives the skeleton, but specific facts must be drafted from the actual matter. See: Drafting a Plaint Under Order VII of the CPC: A Complete Guide.

2. Written statement (Order VIII CPC) The defendant's response. Order VIII requires para-wise reply, preliminary objections, and specific denial or admission of each material fact. The most-missed step is the specific denial — a blanket "denied" does not create an issue. A good template structures para-wise responses so the advocate populates the substance rather than inventing the form.

3. Vakalatnama The authority for an advocate to appear, act, and plead. Its form varies by court: stamp value, the specific court's name, and multi-advocate variants differ. The critical customisation is court-specific — a vakalatnama for the Supreme Court is not the same as one for a Sessions Court. See: Vakalatnama Format: Complete Drafting Guide with Template.

4. Pleading verification clause A recurring component, not a standalone document. Order VI Rule 15 CPC requires verification identifying who is verifying, which portions are from personal knowledge, and which from information and belief. Copying a generic verification is one of the most common template-use errors — it risks rejection at the registry or an inadvertent admission of personal knowledge the party does not hold.

5. Affidavit (Order XIX CPC) Used in support of applications, interim relief, or evidence. Mandatory elements: deponent identity, facts deposed to with personal knowledge and information-and-belief portions flagged separately, jurat, and Notary/Oath Commissioner attestation. The deponent's standing and the scope of their knowledge are matter-specific; an affidavit template must be customised on both points before it is usable.

Criminal matters

6. Bail application (BNSS) Post-July 2024, the applicable statute is the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Regular bail is governed by Section 480 BNSS, anticipatory bail by Section 482 BNSS, default bail by Section 483 BNSS. Any template citing CrPC Section 437, 438, or 167 without confirming the matter predates the transition is an unreliable baseline. The grounds — personal liberty, sureties, investigation co-operation — must reflect the specific accused's circumstances.

7. Writ petition (Article 226 / Article 32) High Court writ under Article 226 or Supreme Court writ under Article 32. The template skeleton covers the cause title, statement of facts, grounds of challenge, and prayers. Jurisdiction is the first customisation: which court, which writ type (mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, or quo warranto), and the specific respondent authority. See: Writ Petition Drafting Under Article 226: A Practical Guide.

8. Quashing petition (BNSS Section 528 / formerly CrPC Section 482) An application invoking the High Court's inherent power. CrPC Section 482 is now Section 528 BNSS. Quashing petitions are intensely fact-driven — the specific ground (abuse of process, no prima facie case, mala fide exercise) must be tailored to the matter. A generic grounds paragraph will not survive scrutiny. See: Section 482 CrPC (Now Section 528 BNSS): Quashing Petitions Explained.

9. Civil revision (Section 115 CPC) A revision before the High Court challenging a subordinate civil court order on grounds of jurisdiction, illegality, or material irregularity. The template covers the impugned order identification, grounds of revision, and prayer for stay. Section 115 CPC was amended to restrict the revisable category; the customisation must confirm the order falls within that restricted scope.

Appeals

10. Memo of appeal (civil) The document initiating appeal from a civil decree or order. It must identify the decree appealed, the grounds of appeal, and the prayer. Grounds must correspond to specific findings in the impugned order — generic "the court erred" language is not a ground of appeal and will not be entertained.

11. Memo of appeal (criminal — BNSS Section 415) Criminal appeals are governed by Part XVI of the BNSS (Section 415 onwards). The memo must identify the conviction/sentence appealed, the grounds, and the relief sought. Post-July 2024, templates must use BNSS section numbers throughout — appeals citing CrPC section numbers for post-transition matters are substantively erroneous.

Interlocutory and miscellaneous

12. Application for temporary injunction (Order XXXIX CPC + Specific Relief Act Sections 36–37) Two parts: the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the substantive basis under Sections 36–37 of the Specific Relief Act. The three-limb test (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) is the analytical structure — the template covers the format; the advocate populates the three limbs with matter-specific facts. See: Specific Relief Act 1963: A Practitioner's Guide for Indian Advocates.

13. Caveat (Section 148A CPC) A notice filed by a party anticipating an adverse application, ensuring they are heard before any ex parte order. Section 148A gives the caveat a three-month life. The caveat must identify the specific proceeding anticipated and the specific court — a generic caveat covering "all proceedings" may not serve its procedural purpose and must be checked against local practice.

14. Notice under Section 80 CPC (suits against government) Section 80 CPC requires two months' notice before filing suit against the government or a public officer for acts in official capacity. The notice must identify the cause of action, the intended relief, and the parties. Critical customisation: the correct government body (Central/State/UT, specific department), the precise act or omission, and the correct delivery address. A notice that does not match the eventual plaint is a procedural ground for dismissal.

What to customise per court (and which templates to never copy verbatim)

Court-specific format rules differ more than most advocates outside metropolitan practice expect. The Bombay High Court has different paper size, paragraph-numbering, and section-heading conventions from the Delhi High Court; the Supreme Court's filing requirements differ again. Before filing any templated document, verify the destination court's presentation rules — most High Courts publish these in their Rules or in Registrar circulars. A template that encodes one HC's conventions may be returned at another HC's filing window on purely presentational grounds.

Verification is the most common error site. Order VI Rule 15 requires verification specific to the pleading: which portions the deponent verifies from personal knowledge, which from information received and believed to be true. A copied verification from a previous matter becomes a misstatement the moment it is attached to a new pleading. The customisation here is not optional; it is the difference between a valid pleading and a procedurally defective one.

Jurisdiction paragraphs are similarly non-portable. Territorial, pecuniary, and subject-matter jurisdiction all change with each matter. A jurisdiction clause that correctly characterised one client's case is unverified for the next until the advocate confirms it.

Cause of action and prayer are the portions where templates cannot do the work. The specific cause of action must be drafted from the actual facts; the prayer must reflect the exact relief sought in this matter. These sections must be drafted, not substituted.

On vakalatnamas: stamp value, the court's full name, and multi-advocate enrolment details vary by court and must be checked before each filing. See: Vakalatnama Format: Complete Drafting Guide with Template.

On bail applications: the BNSS transition of July 2024 means any template citing CrPC sections for post-transition matters is factually incorrect. The section mapping (CrPC 437 → BNSS 480; CrPC 438 → BNSS 482; CrPC 167(2) → BNSS 483) must be verified for every matter by its date of registration.

Where good baseline templates come from (and which sources to avoid)

The source determines how recently the template was updated, whether it was drafted for Indian courts specifically, and whether practitioners who know what registries require have reviewed it.

Sources that work:

• Bar Council and State Bar Council model formats — where available, the most authoritative starting point
• High Court registry sample formats — most HCs publish baseline pleading formats that encode their own presentation requirements; these update when practice directions change
• Court-attached bar association libraries — format files vetted against local practice for a specific court
• Chamber-internal precedent files — the most reliable source is the chamber's own prior successful filings, approved by a senior advocate for that court and updated as the law changes
• Reputable Indian legal publishers — annotated form books, with attention to edition date

Sources to approach with caution:

• Templates not updated for the BNS/BNSS/BSA transition (July 2024). If a bail application cites "Section 437 Cr.P.C." without qualification, it predates the transition and is unsafe for post-July 2024 matters.
• Templates with missing or generic verification clauses. A pleading template without a properly drafted verification section is structurally incomplete.
• Templates presented without customisation guidance — a template framed as needing no adaptation before filing is encouraging the failure mode this post describes.
• Generic global law-firm templates adapted superficially for India — they typically lack court-specific format requirements and Indian statutory precision.
• Templates with no date or version information — if you cannot determine when a template was last reviewed, you cannot assess whether it reflects current law.

If you are drafting frequently and want AI-grounded research alongside court-aware templates that update as section numbers change, start your 30-day free trial of Nowlez.

AI-assisted drafting: where it helps, where human judgment dominates

AI drafting tools in Indian legal practice produce two failure modes: advocates who treat AI output as a finished draft, and advocates who dismiss AI assistance as incompatible with rigorous practice. Neither position is accurate.

Where AI assistance is genuinely useful:

• Structural scaffolding: generating a pleading skeleton from a description of the matter type — the mandatory Order VII sections, a writ's grounds format, a memo-of-appeal structure. The advocate describes the matter; the AI produces the scaffold; the advocate drafts the substance into it.
• Citation surfacing: identifying potentially relevant precedent for the advocate to verify and apply. The AI surfaces candidates; the judgment is the advocate's.
• Cross-referencing: flagging internal inconsistencies — a prayer that does not align with the cause of action pleaded, a jurisdiction clause that does not match the facts described.
• Section-number transitions: catching references to CrPC, IPC, or Evidence Act sections in post-July 2024 drafts and flagging the BNSS/BNS/BSA equivalents for the advocate to confirm.

Where human judgment must dominate:

• Cause of action: facts-to-law mapping is irreducibly a thinking task. The advocate holds the facts, the instructions, and the legal analysis; the AI does not.
• Prayer drafting: the specific relief sought is strategic. Whether to seek mandatory or prohibitory injunction, how to calibrate interim and final relief — these are matter-specific judgments.
• Verification clauses: a generic AI-generated verification attached to a specific pleading is a misstatement. The verification must accurately reflect what the verifying party actually knows and how.
• Tone and register: court-appropriate framing varies by bench and by matter. This is professional judgment, not a structural task.

The honest test: if an AI produces a draft, can the advocate independently verify every cited section, every procedural assumption, every paragraph reference? If not, the draft is not ready. The customisation requirement applies to AI-generated output exactly as it applies to any template.

Templates are scaffolding for thought, not a substitute for it. The 60–80% of structural drafting time saved by good baselines is real, but the remaining 20–40% — the cause of action, the prayer, the verification, the court-specific format — is the work. If you would like to talk through how Nowlez handles court-aware templates and AI-assisted drafting, talk to the founder.