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 Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be deployed by a defendant to introduce a wholly inconsistent and contradictory case after the trial has commenced. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, deciding Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34411 of 2025), allowed the appeal filed by plaintiff Mondira Ghosh and restored the Trial Court's order rejecting the defendant's application. The Court found that the Calcutta High Court had correctly identified the legal bar but then inexplicably overridden it, permitting what amounted to an abuse of process.

The Eviction 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 the defendant, Chaitali Ghosh, was in unlawful possession of the suit premises and seeking 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.

At that advanced stage, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC seeking leave to file an additional written statement along with a counter claim. The proposed additional written statement took a position diametrically opposed to the original: the defendant now claimed to be a tenant under the plaintiff, not a co-sharer.

Trial Court Rejects the Application

The Trial Court rejected the application by Order No. 18 dated 17 June 2025. It observed that the defendant had earlier claimed to be a bonafide co-sharer but was now claiming to be a tenant — a complete reversal. The Trial Court referred to Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, which bars any pleading from raising a new ground of claim or containing allegations of fact inconsistent with the party's previous pleadings, except by way of amendment. It held that a defendant could not be allowed to retract from the stand taken in the original written statement and bring in 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. By the impugned judgment dated 3 September 2025, a learned Judge of the High Court allowed the application in part. The counter claim was refused, the High Court noting that it was sought after cross-examination of the plaintiff's first witness had already taken place.

On the additional written statement, however, the High Court's reasoning took an unusual turn. The learned Judge correctly identified that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC bars amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial in the ordinary course, and that this bar would operate against the defendant. The learned Judge 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 correct legal position, the High Court then permitted the additional written statement to be filed. It reasoned that the contents of the proposed additional written statement brought forth facts necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties, that a party should not suffer for facts inadvertently omitted from an earlier written statement, and that the delay had been satisfactorily explained. The defendant was directed to file the additional written statement within a time frame on payment of 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 Flawed

The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach internally contradictory. Having correctly stated the legal bar, the High Court had “strangely went on” to permit the very thing it had identified as impermissible.

The Court examined Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, which provides 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. The Court held that this provision did not permit the defendant to use an additional written statement as a vehicle for introducing a wholly inconsistent case.

This was not, the Court said, a case of a fact having been inadvertently omitted from the written statement and sought to be supplied by way of an additional written statement. 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. That retraction and the introduction of a totally inconsistent and contradictory stand was contrary to the mandate of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC.

The Court further held that the very filing of the application, after the defendant had failed to seek amendment of her written statement at the appropriate stage and after the trial had already commenced, was clearly an abuse of process. The ploy was adopted, as the High Court itself had noted, 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.

Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 3 September 2025 passed by the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 3172 of 2025. Order No. 18 dated 17 June 2025 passed by the X Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1527 of 2022 was restored. The Court directed that parties shall bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.