Defendant Cannot Use Additional Written Statement to Contradict Original Pleading, Supreme Court Holds
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court order that allowed a defendant to reverse her own pleaded position mid-trial through an additional written statement.
The Supreme Court has held that a defendant cannot invoke Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to file an additional written statement that takes a position wholly inconsistent with her original written statement, particularly after the trial has commenced. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by plaintiff Mondira Ghosh, setting aside the Calcutta High Court's order of 3 September 2025 that had permitted the defendant, Chaitali Ghosh, to file such an additional written statement on payment of costs of ₹15,000. The Court restored the Trial Court's order rejecting the application, finding that the High Court had correctly identified the legal bar but then contradicted itself by allowing the filing anyway.
The Suit and the Defendant's Shifting Stand
Mondira Ghosh filed Title Suit No. 1527 of 2022 before the X Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta, seeking a declaration that Chaitali Ghosh was in unlawful possession of the suit premises and her eviction, along with damages and costs.
Chaitali Ghosh filed her written statement on 8 December 2022. In it, she claimed to be a bonafide co-sharer of the suit premises and sought dismissal of the suit. Issues were framed on 17 May 2023. The trial then commenced, and the plaintiff's first witness was cross-examined on three separate dates: 18 December 2023, 18 March 2024, and 24 July 2024.
After that cross-examination, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC seeking leave to file an additional written statement together with a counter claim. The proposed additional written statement contained a fundamentally different case: the defendant now claimed to be a tenant under the plaintiff, not a co-sharer of the premises.
Trial Court Rejects the Application
The X Judge, City Civil Court rejected the application by Order No. 18 dated 17 June 2025. The Trial Court observed that the defendant had earlier claimed to be a bonafide co-sharer, whereas the proposed additional written statement now claimed tenancy under the plaintiff. Issues had been framed as far back as May 2023 and the trial had already commenced.
The Trial Court referred to Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, which provides that no pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the same party. It held that a defendant could not be permitted to retract from the stand taken in the original written statement and introduce an altogether inconsistent case. The application was dismissed with costs.
High Court Allows the Additional Written Statement
The defendant challenged the Trial Court's order before the Calcutta High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in C.O. No. 3172 of 2025. A learned Judge of the High Court, by the impugned order dated 3 September 2025, allowed the application to the extent of permitting the additional written statement, though not the counter claim.
On the counter claim, the High Court found that it was sought after cross-examination of the plaintiff's first witness had already taken place, and declined to permit it even in exceptional circumstances.
On the additional written statement, the High Court correctly noted that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC bars amendment of pleadings in the ordinary course after commencement of trial, and that this bar would operate against the defendant. The High Court also acknowledged that there was substance in the plaintiff's argument that leave under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC should not be granted if the object is to bypass the embargo in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Despite stating this legal position, the High Court then permitted the additional written statement. It reasoned that the contents brought forth facts necessary for deciding the real controversy, that a party should not suffer for facts inadvertently omitted from an earlier written statement, and that the delay had been satisfactorily explained. It imposed costs of ₹15,000.
Aggrieved, Mondira Ghosh approached the Supreme Court. By order dated 2 December 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay of further proceedings in the suit.
Why the High Court's Reasoning Was Internally Contradictory
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had correctly identified the applicable legal position but then “strangely went on” to permit the very thing it had recognised as impermissible.
The Court analysed Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, which states that no pleading shall ordinarily be presented after the filing of a written statement unless it is by way of defence to a set-off or counter claim, and allows an additional written statement only when the Court requires it. Read in that light, the Court held that the High Court was wrong to treat this as a case of facts inadvertently omitted from the original written statement.
This was not a situation where a fact had been left out and needed to be supplied. The defendant wanted to do a complete volte-face: from claiming to be a bonafide co-sharer to claiming to be the plaintiff's tenant. The Court held that this retraction and introduction of a totally inconsistent and contradictory stand, in the guise of filing an additional written statement, was contrary to the mandate of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC.
The Court further held that the very filing of such an application, after the defendant had failed to seek amendment of her written statement at the appropriate stage and after trial had commenced, was “clearly an abuse of process.” The Court noted that, as the High Court itself had acknowledged, this was a ploy to get over the hurdle raised by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which would not have permitted the defendant to seek amendment of her written statement at that stage.
Order
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal. It set aside the order dated 3 September 2025 passed by the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 3172 of 2025 and restored Order No. 18 dated 17 June 2025 passed by the X Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1527 of 2022. The Court directed that parties shall bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.