The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that while defendants enjoy broad latitude under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to file additional written statements even after evidence has closed, such pleadings cannot be used to retract clear, categorical admissions previously made. This ruling reinforces the balance between procedural flexibility and the sanctity of judicial admissions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiffs filed Original Suit No. 26 of 2015 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 15.01.1991 over immovable property located in Namburu Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District. The defendants, Yendreddy Pushpavathi and Nadikudi Rami Reddy, filed separate written statements denying the plaintiffs’ claims and asserting their own rights as bona fide purchasers.
Key Facts
- The agreement of sale was executed on 15.01.1991, with a condition that if the balance sale consideration was not paid by end of January 1992, the agreement would stand cancelled.
- Defendant No. 1 (Yendreddy Pushpavathi) adopted the written statement filed by Defendant No. 2 (Nadikudi Rami Reddy) on 12.03.2016, which contained the plea that she was a bona fide purchaser for value and had been in peaceful possession since 1992.
- The plaintiffs completed their evidence on 05.02.2023.
- On 15.06.2023, Defendant No. 1 filed I.A. No. 362 of 2023 seeking permission to file an additional written statement.
- The proposed additional written statement alleged that the plaintiff No. 1 forged the signature of Defendant No. 1 on a part-payment endorsement dated 15.01.1992, and that no such payment was ever made.
- The plaintiffs opposed the application, arguing that Defendant No. 1 was attempting to withdraw admissions implicit in adopting Defendant No. 2’s written statement, which affirmed her status as a lawful possessor.
Procedural History
- 15.01.1991: Execution of agreement of sale
- 12.03.2016: Defendant No. 1 adopted Defendant No. 2’s written statement
- 05.02.2023: Plaintiffs closed their evidence
- 15.06.2023: Defendant No. 1 filed I.A. No. 362 of 2023 seeking leave to file additional written statement
- 10.07.2023: Trial Court allowed I.A. No. 362 of 2023
- 28.07.2023: Civil Revision Petition No. 2827 of 2024 filed before the High Court
- 16.03.2026: Case reserved
- 08.04.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners (Plaintiffs): Argued that Defendant No. 1’s adoption of Defendant No. 2’s written statement constituted an admission of possession and title, and that the proposed additional written statement sought to undermine this by alleging forgery and non-payment - a fundamental contradiction.
Respondents (Defendants): Contended that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC permits any party to file additional pleadings at any stage, and that the new allegations were not a withdrawal of admission but an assertion of an alternative defense - namely, that the agreement was void ab initio due to forgery.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought: (1) setting aside the order dated 10.07.2023 allowing the additional written statement; (2) stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 26 of 2015 pending disposal of the revision; and (3) costs.
The Legal Issue
Can a defendant, who has adopted another defendant’s written statement containing clear factual admissions, file an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC that directly contradicts those admissions by alleging forgery and non-payment?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, while liberal, cannot be used to permit a party to withdraw or nullify prior admissions. He relied on settled principles that admissions in pleadings are binding and cannot be retracted without court permission, especially after evidence has closed. He cited P. Saraswathi v. C. Subrahmanyam to emphasize that while alternative pleas are permitted, mutually destructive pleas are not. He contended that the trial court erred in treating the proposed plea as a new defense rather than a retraction of an admission.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent’s counsel argued that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC imposes no temporal or substantive restrictions on filing additional written statements. He emphasized that defendants are entitled to raise inconsistent or alternative pleas, and that the allegation of forgery was not a withdrawal of the earlier plea of possession but an independent defense challenging the validity of the agreement itself. He maintained that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under the rule and that the High Court should not interfere under Article 227.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming that defendants are permitted under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to file additional written statements even after the commencement of trial, and that courts have wide discretion to permit such pleadings to ensure justice. The provision is designed to facilitate the determination of the real controversy and is not to be construed narrowly.
"Order 8 Rule 9 CPC empowers the Court to call for the written statement or additional written statement from any party, fixing time, not exceeding 30 days."
However, the Court drew a critical distinction: while defendants may raise alternative or inconsistent pleas, they cannot use additional pleadings to withdraw or nullify a clear, categorical admission already made in prior pleadings. The Court held that adoption of another defendant’s written statement constitutes an adoption of its factual assertions, including those relating to possession and title.
The Court examined the proposed additional written statement and found that it did not merely add a new defense - it directly contradicted the foundational admission that Defendant No. 1 was a lawful possessor under a valid agreement. The allegation of forgery on the part-payment endorsement, if true, would render the entire agreement void and undermine the very basis of the earlier admission.
The Court noted that in P. Saraswathi v. C. Subrahmanyam, the Madras High Court had held that while alternative pleas are permissible, they must not be mutually destructive of prior admissions. The trial court’s order, in allowing the additional statement, failed to appreciate this distinction.
The Court further observed that permitting such a retraction after evidence has closed would cause irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiffs, who had led their entire case on the assumption that the defendants admitted possession and title.
The Verdict
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court’s order dated 10.07.2023 allowing the additional written statement. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Admissions Cannot Be Retracted Through Additional Pleadings
- Practitioners must treat adopted written statements as binding admissions - any subsequent attempt to contradict them via additional pleadings will be struck down.
- Courts will not permit defendants to use Order 8 Rule 9 CPC as a tool to undo admissions after evidence has closed, even if the new plea is framed as an alternative defense.
Alternative Pleadings Must Be Non-Contradictory
- Defendants may plead inconsistent defenses (e.g., "I didn’t sign" and "I signed but was coerced") only if they do not nullify prior factual assertions.
- If a prior pleading admits possession or title, a subsequent plea alleging forgery of the underlying document will be deemed a retraction, not an alternative.
Procedural Timing Matters
- While Order 8 Rule 9 CPC allows additional pleadings at any stage, courts will weigh prejudice to the opposing party - especially if evidence is closed.
- Applications filed after evidence closure require heightened scrutiny and must demonstrate that the new plea adds a genuinely independent defense, not a contradiction.
