The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that courts must not permit defendants to use additional written statements to circumvent clear and unequivocal admissions made in their original pleadings, even where such admissions were allegedly made due to counsel’s inadvertence. This ruling underscores the procedural integrity required in civil litigation and the limits of judicial discretion under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a Leave and Licence Agreement dated 01.08.2018, under which the Respondent-Plaintiff was granted the right to occupy Unit No.104, first floor, in the building ‘Platina’, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai, for a term of 36 months commencing 05.03.2018. The Plaintiff deposited a security amount of Rs.49,93,920/-, to be refunded upon termination of the licence. The agreement did not provide for interest on the deposit.
Key Facts
- The licence term expired on 04.03.2021.
- On 07.11.2020, the Plaintiff delivered possession of the premises to the Defendants.
- On 18.11.2020, the Defendants communicated via email acknowledging receipt of possession and indicating willingness to refund the security deposit after adjusting outstanding dues.
- The Defendants’ original written statement, filed on 04.08.2022, admitted liability to refund the security deposit after deducting Rs.5,42,225/- for unpaid licence fees, CAM charges, and electricity bills.
- The Plaintiff filed Notice of Motion No.3016 of 2022 on 15.12.2022 seeking summary judgment based on these admissions.
- On 24.03.2023, the Defendants filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to file an additional written statement claiming Rs.96,82,345/-, comprising Rs.5,25,000/- for repairs and Rs.81,15,120/- for loss of rental income over nine months.
- The proposed additional written statement did not include a formal counter-claim, nor did it specify the cause of action date, court fee payment, or prayer for recovery.
Procedural History
- 01.08.2018: Leave and Licence Agreement executed.
- 05.03.2018: Licence term commenced.
- 07.11.2020: Possession of premises returned to Defendants.
- 18.11.2020: Email communication from Defendants acknowledging refund obligation after adjustment.
- 04.08.2022: Original written statement filed by Defendants, containing clear admissions of liability.
- 15.12.2022: Plaintiff filed Notice of Motion for summary judgment.
- 24.03.2023: Defendants filed Notice of Motion seeking leave to file additional written statement.
- 06.05.2024: City Civil Court rejected the Notice of Motion, holding the additional pleading was an attempt to override admissions.
- 28.03.2025: Writ Petition No.898 of 2025 filed before Bombay High Court.
- 06.01.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 25.03.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
Defendants (Petitioners): Argued that the original written statement contained inadvertent admissions due to their counsel’s oversight. They claimed the authorized signatory had instructed counsel to raise claims for repairs and lost rental income, but these were omitted. They relied on Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar to assert that inconsistent pleas are permissible if they correct misstatements.
Plaintiff (Respondent): Contended that the admissions in the original written statement were deliberate, clear, and unambiguous. The additional written statement was a tactical attempt to withdraw those admissions after the Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The proposed claim lacked essential pleading elements and was filed solely to delay proceedings.
Relief Sought
The Petitioners sought quashing of the City Civil Court’s order dated 06.05.2024, and a direction to permit the filing of the additional written statement, including the claim of Rs.96,82,345/-. They also sought costs.
The Legal Issue
Can a defendant, after making clear and unequivocal admissions in the original written statement, obtain leave under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to file an additional written statement that seeks to withdraw those admissions and assert a new, higher claim, where the explanation offered is mere inadvertence by counsel?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel for the Petitioners relied on Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar to argue that defendants are entitled to correct inadvertent or erroneous admissions through additional pleadings, even if inconsistent. They emphasized that Order VIII Rule 9 permits subsequent pleadings with court leave and that the purpose of pleadings is to determine the real controversy. They contended that the omission of the repair and rental loss claims was due to counsel’s oversight, not bad faith, and that the Defendants should not suffer for their advocate’s mistake. They further argued that the Court should adopt a liberal approach to amendments in written statements, as prejudice to the Plaintiff is minimal.
For the Respondent/State
Counsel for the Respondent argued that the admissions in the original written statement were not inadvertent but deliberate and specific, appearing in eight distinct clauses (e), (g), (h), (i), (k), (l), (n), and (o) of Paragraph 7. The proposed additional written statement was not a mere amplification but a complete reversal of position, filed only after the Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. He relied on M/s Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co Ltd v. M/s Ladha Ram and Co to show that such substitution of pleadings to displace admissions is impermissible and prejudicial. He also highlighted that the proposed claim lacked essential counter-claim formalities - no cause of action date, no court fee, no prayer - rendering it procedurally defective.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, distinguishing it from Order VI Rule 17 on amendment of pleadings. While Order VI Rule 17 permits amendment of pleadings with retrospective effect, Order VIII Rule 9 governs subsequent pleadings, which do not relate back and are subject to judicial discretion. The Court noted that the legislature’s intent in allowing subsequent pleadings under Rule 9 is to address unforeseen contingencies, not to permit parties to undo clear admissions.
"The Defendants cannot be allowed to change completely the case made in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the written statement and substitute an entirely different and new case."
The Court cited M/s Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co Ltd v. M/s Ladha Ram and Co to emphasize that allowing such substitution would irretrievably prejudice the Plaintiff by depriving them of the opportunity to rely on admissions for summary judgment. The Court observed that the Defendants’ affidavit in support of the motion explicitly acknowledged that the original written statement contained admissions they now wished to withdraw, thereby revealing an intent to evade liability.
The Court rejected the reliance on Sushil Kumar Jain, distinguishing it factually. In that case, the admission sought to be corrected was a vague, contradictory phrase about tenancy, not a series of specific, deliberate admissions of liability. Here, the admissions were precise, repeated, and tied to quantified amounts. The Court held that attributing the omission to counsel’s inadvertence was insufficient to override the principle that pleadings must reflect the true case of the party, not serve as a tactical device.
The Court further noted that the proposed additional written statement failed to meet even minimal requirements of a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6 - no cause of action date, no court fee, no specific prayer. The Court declined to adjudicate the maintainability of the counter-claim, noting it was premature, but held that the procedural deficiencies reinforced the conclusion that the motion was an abuse of process.
The Verdict
The Writ Petition was dismissed with costs. The Bombay High Court upheld the City Civil Court’s order dated 06.05.2024, refusing leave to file the additional written statement. The Court held that the Defendants’ attempt to withdraw clear admissions through a belated and procedurally defective pleading was impermissible under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. No relief was granted to the Petitioners. The rule was discharged.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Admissions Cannot Be Undone Through Procedural Loopholes
- Practitioners must treat original written statements as binding admissions unless corrected through formal amendment under Order VI Rule 17 before trial commences.
- A claim of counsel’s inadvertence will not justify overriding clear, specific admissions made in pleadings.
- Courts will scrutinize the timing of such applications - especially if filed after a summary judgment motion - as indicative of tactical delay.
Additional Written Statements Are Not a Substitute for Counter-Claims
- Any claim seeking affirmative relief must be pleaded as a formal counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6, with cause of action, court fee, and prayer.
- Merely inserting a claim into an additional written statement without meeting counter-claim requirements renders it procedurally invalid.
- Courts will not entertain belated attempts to convert a defence into a counter-claim after the Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment.
Liberal Approach to Amendments Does Not Extend to Reversing Admissions
- While courts adopt a liberal stance toward amendments in written statements, this does not permit reversal of clear admissions.
- The distinction between correcting a misstatement and substituting an entire case remains critical.
- Practitioners must ensure all defences and potential counter-claims are raised at the earliest opportunity to avoid procedural disallowance.
