Current through July 1, 2026 · Last verified July 13, 2026
This rule’s current text took effect January 1, 2025. For the full history of earlier amendments and adoption orders, see the Indiana Office of Court Services.
Section A limits an Indiana lawsuit to four pairs of pleadings: a complaint and an answer; a counterclaim and a reply to it; a cross-claim and an answer to it; and, when a new party is brought into the case under Rule 14, a third-party complaint and a third-party answer. Nothing else counts as a pleading — the list is closed, so there is no reply to an answer or any other rebuttal pleading beyond those four pairs.
Section B requires that any request for a court order be made by written motion, unless it comes up during a hearing or trial or the court allows otherwise. The motion has to state its grounds and the relief it is asking for, and — notably — it has to come with a separate proposed order the judge could sign. Section C keeps hearings from happening automatically: a party who wants a hearing on a motion has to ask for one in a separate written motion, and whether to grant that hearing is left to the judge’s discretion unless something else requires one.
Section D covers continuances, and it is likely the part of Rule 7 people search for most. A party has to move for a continuance as soon as the reason for the delay comes to light — waiting is not an option. The written motion has to say one of three things about where the other side stands: that they do not object, that they do object, or that their position is unknown, along with the date, time, and method used to try to reach them, or an explanation for why reaching them was not possible. If a party skips that outreach step, a judge can still grant the continuance, but only if the party certifies in writing what efforts were made to give notice and why actual notice should not be required. Every continuance motion also has to estimate how much additional time is needed before the matter can be heard, and give a good-faith estimate of how long the rescheduled hearing or trial will take. Any local rule addressing continuances gives way to this one. Continuance practice in Indiana used to turn on a showing of good cause under a separate rule; the current version drops that language and centers instead on documenting contact with the opposing side and giving the court a realistic sense of how much time is at stake.
Only four pairs: a complaint and an answer, a counterclaim and a reply, a cross-claim and an answer to the cross-claim, and — when a new party is added under Rule 14 — a third-party complaint and a third-party answer. That list is closed, so there is no reply to an answer or any other pleading beyond those four pairs.
Yes, with narrow exceptions. Rule 7(B) requires that a request for a court order be made by written motion unless it comes up during a hearing or trial, or the court allows it to be made another way. The motion has to explain its grounds and what relief it is asking for.
Yes. Rule 7(B) requires a separate proposed order to accompany every written motion — a draft of the order you are asking the judge to sign.
File a separate written request for one. Rule 7(C) does not schedule a hearing automatically just because a motion was filed — you have to ask for a hearing by separate written motion, and the court has discretion over whether to grant it unless another rule requires one.
Under Rule 7(D), the motion has to be filed as soon as the reason for the delay is discovered, and it has to state whether the opposing party objects, does not object, or has an unknown position — and if unknown, when and how you tried to find out. It also has to estimate how much delay you need and how long the rescheduled hearing or trial will take.
No. Rule 7(D) does not require the opposing party’s consent — it requires you to tell the court where the other side stands, whether in favor, opposed, or unknown, so the judge can weigh the request with that information.
You can still file, but you have to certify in writing what efforts you made to give notice and explain why actual notice should not be required. Rule 7(D) allows the court to grant the continuance on that basis even without confirmed contact with the opposing side.