#pleading consistency

The Supreme Court has ruled that permitting a defendant to file an inconsistent additional written statement after trial has begun amounts to an abuse of process under the CPC. This clarifies that once issues are framed and evidence is recorded, parties cannot pivot to mutually exclusive legal positions - safeguarding trial integrity and fairness for plaintiffs and courts alike.

HP High Court reinforces that appellate courts cannot permit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC unless the party demonstrates strict due diligence and consistency in pleadings. The ruling underscores that 'complete justice' cannot override statutory conditions, impacting litigants seeking to introduce new evidence post-delay.