Additional written statement cannot reverse pleaded stand

The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court order that had permitted a defendant to file an additional written statement at an advanced stage of trial. The Court restored the trial court’s refusal, holding that the proposed pleading was not a mere clarification or omission, but a complete reversal of the defendant’s earlier stand.

The suit was for declaration that the defendant was in unlawful possession of the premises, eviction, damages and costs. In her original written statement, the defendant claimed to be a bona fide co-sharer of the suit property. Issues were framed on 17 May 2023, and the trial had already commenced, including cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness, when the defendant sought leave under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to file an additional written statement along with a counterclaim.

The trial court rejected the application. It noted that the defendant was now asserting that she was a tenant under the plaintiff, which was wholly inconsistent with her earlier plea that she was a co-sharer. The court relied on Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, which prohibits pleadings that introduce allegations of fact inconsistent with previous pleadings, except by amendment.

The High Court agreed that the counterclaim could not be entertained after trial had commenced, but still allowed the additional written statement on payment of costs. It reasoned that the proposed pleading contained facts relevant to the real controversy and that the delay was explained.

The Supreme Court found that approach unsustainable. It held that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC does not permit a party to use an additional written statement to fill an omission of the kind suggested by the High Court. This was not a case of inadvertently left-out facts. The defendant was attempting to completely change her status and possession claim, from co-sharer to tenant. That was a retraction of the original stand and a contradictory plea, barred by Order 6 Rule 7 CPC.

The Court also observed that the application was filed after the defendant had failed to seek amendment at the appropriate stage and after trial had commenced. In those circumstances, the attempt was an abuse of process and an effort to bypass the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the trial court’s order rejecting the additional written statement was restored.

Practical takeaway: once trial has begun, a party cannot use an additional written statement to take a wholly inconsistent stand and sidestep the amendment rules.