The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the foundational principle that litigants cannot alter their fundamental legal stance mid-trial to gain tactical advantage. In a decisive ruling, the Court struck down a High Court order permitting a defendant to file an inconsistent additional written statement after trial had commenced, emphasizing that procedural fairness demands consistency in pleadings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, Mondira Ghosh, filed Title Suit No. 1527 of 2022 before the Xth Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, seeking a declaration that the defendant, Chaitali Ghosh, was in unlawful possession of the suit premises and demanding her eviction along with damages and costs. The defendant initially filed her written statement on 08.12.2022, asserting that she was a bonafide co-sharer of the property and denying the plaintiff’s claim.
Key Facts
- The suit was instituted on 15.07.2022
- Written statement filed by defendant on 08.12.2022, claiming co-ownership status
- Issues were framed on 17.05.2023
- Trial commenced with examination of PW-1 on 17.05.2023
- Cross-examination of PW-1 occurred on three dates: 18.12.2023, 18.03.2024, and 24.07.2024
- On 15.06.2025, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file an additional written statement
- The proposed additional written statement contradicted the original plea by claiming tenant status under the plaintiff
Procedural History
- 15.07.2022: Suit filed by plaintiff
- 08.12.2022: Defendant files original written statement claiming co-sharer status
- 17.05.2023: Issues framed by Trial Court
- 17.05.2023: Commencement of trial with examination of PW-1
- 18.12.2023, 18.03.2024, 24.07.2024: Cross-examination of PW-1 completed
- 15.06.2025: Defendant files application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC for additional written statement
- 17.06.2025: Trial Court rejects application (Order No. 18), citing inconsistency and procedural delay
- 03.09.2025: Calcutta High Court allows application on payment of ₹15,000 costs
- 02.12.2025: Supreme Court grants stay of further proceedings in the suit
- 26.05.2026: Supreme Court delivers judgment
Relief Sought
The plaintiff sought restoration of the Trial Court’s order rejecting the additional written statement. The defendant sought permission to file the inconsistent pleading and pursue a counterclaim.
The Legal Issue
Can a defendant, after trial has commenced and issues have been framed, be permitted to file an additional written statement that fundamentally contradicts her original plea under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, when such a change is barred by Order 6 Rule 7 CPC?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant (Plaintiff)
The appellant argued that the defendant’s attempt to shift from co-sharer to tenant status was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the prohibition under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which bars amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial. The change was not an inadvertent omission but a strategic retraction of a prior admission. Reliance was placed on Smt. Sushila Devi v. Harish Chandra and Rajendra Prasad v. Smt. Savitri Devi to establish that pleadings must be consistent and cannot be altered to introduce contradictory claims.
For the Respondent (Defendant)
The respondent contended that the additional written statement merely clarified facts inadvertently omitted from the original pleading. She argued that the High Court’s discretion under Article 227 should be respected, especially since the new facts were relevant to the real controversy. She cited K. S. Srinivasan v. K. S. Ramanathan to support the view that courts should facilitate adjudication on merits rather than technicalities.
The Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court meticulously dissected the procedural posture of the case. It emphasized that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC permits additional written statements only in limited circumstances - namely, as a defence to a set-off or counterclaim, or when the court specifically requires it. The Court held that the defendant’s application did not fall within any of these exceptions.
"This was not a case of a fact not having been stated in the written statement and that void being sought to be filled up by way of an additional written statement. On the other hand, the defendant wanted to completely change her stand with regard to her status and claim for being in possession."
The Court observed that the defendant’s original plea of co-ownership was a substantive legal claim, not a mere factual oversight. The proposed additional written statement introduced a legally inconsistent position - tenant status - which directly undermined the foundation of her original defence. This amounted to a volte-face, not an amendment.
The Court further noted that the High Court erred in relying on the relevance of the new facts to justify the filing. Relevance cannot override the procedural mandate of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, which prohibits pleadings from containing allegations inconsistent with prior pleadings. The Court held that the High Court’s reasoning effectively nullified the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, rendering it otiose.
The Court concluded that permitting such a change after cross-examination of the first witness had concluded constituted an abuse of process. The defendant had ample opportunity to amend her pleadings before trial commenced but chose not to. The delay was not innocent but tactical.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order dated 03.09.2025 and restored the Trial Court’s order dated 17.06.2025, which rejected the defendant’s application to file an additional written statement. The defendant is barred from relying on the inconsistent tenant claim. Parties shall bear their own costs. Pending applications are disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pleadings Must Remain Consistent After Trial Commences
- Practitioners must ensure all factual and legal claims are fully pleaded before issues are framed
- Any attempt to introduce a contradictory plea after trial begins will be treated as an abuse of process
- Courts will not permit tactical retraction of admissions, even if the new claim appears factually relevant
Order 8 Rule 9 CPC Is Not a Loophole for Bypassing Order 6 Rule 17
- Applications under Order 8 Rule 9 cannot be used to circumvent the prohibition on post-trial amendments
- The provision is narrow and does not permit wholesale changes in legal stance
- Courts must scrutinize whether the application is genuinely for a set-off/counterclaim or a disguised amendment
Judicial Discretion Under Article 227 Has Limits
- High Courts cannot override procedural mandates under CPC under the guise of substantive justice
- The power of superintendence cannot be used to validate clear violations of CPC provisions
- Procedural compliance is not a technicality - it is the bedrock of fair litigation
