Whether a defendant can be permitted to file an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) at an advanced stage of a trial to introduce a completely inconsistent defense, thereby bypassing the restrictions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Appeal allowed; the Calcutta High Court’s order was set aside, and the Trial Court’s order rejecting the additional written statement was restored.
1. Background and Trial Court Proceedings
The appellant (plaintiff), Mondira Ghosh, filed Title Suit No. 1527 of 2022 against the respondent (defendant), Chaitali Ghosh, in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, seeking a declaration of unlawful possession, eviction, and damages. On December 8, 2022, the defendant filed her original written statement claiming to be a “bonafide co-sharer” of the suit premises.
Issues were framed on May 17, 2023, and trial proceedings commenced with the extensive cross-examination of the plaintiff’s first witness (PW-1). At this advanced stage, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to submit an additional written statement and a counter-claim.
- Trial Court’s Rejection: On June 17, 2025, the Trial Court rejected the application. It observed that the defendant was attempting a complete volte-face—shifting her stance from a “co-sharer” to a “tenant” under the plaintiff. The court noted that a party cannot introduce a completely contradictory case after the trial has commenced, citing Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, which prohibits pleadings that raise new or inconsistent grounds of fact.
2. High Court’s Partial Reversal
The defendant challenged this rejection before the Calcutta High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Regarding the Counter-Claim: The High Court agreed that the counter-claim could not be entertained since the trial had already progressed past the cross-examination of the first witness.
- Regarding the Additional Written Statement: Despite acknowledging that the move was an attempt to bypass the strict trial-commencement embargo under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the High Court allowed the additional written statement on a payment of ₹15,000 costs. The High Court reasoned that the new facts were necessary to resolve the real controversy and that the delay had been satisfactorily explained.
3. Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court analyzed the statutory boundaries of the CPC and strongly disagreed with the High Court’s intervention, making the following critical determinations:
- Violation of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC: The Court observed that this was not a case of filling a minor void or addressing an inadvertent omission. The defendant sought to radically alter her defense by asserting tenancy rights, which directly contradicted her initial claim of being a co-sharer. Such structural retractions are explicitly restricted by Order 6 Rule 7 CPC.
- Abuse of Process and Order 6 Rule 17 Proviso: The Supreme Court highlighted that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC heavily restricts the amendment of pleadings once a trial begins. The defendant’s application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC was a tactical “ploy” designed to circumvent this hurdle. Utilizing an alternate provision to bypass an established legal embargo constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
- Scope of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC: The Court reiterated that under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, supplementary pleadings are not an absolute right after the initial written statement is submitted, unless responding to a set-off/counter-claim or specifically directed by the court.
4. Conclusion and Order
The Supreme Court concluded that the Trial Court’s decision was legally and factually sound, while the High Court erred in reversing it. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated September 3, 2025, and restored the Trial Court’s order dismissing the defendant’s application. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
2026 INSC 545
Mondira Ghosh V. Chaitali Ghosh (D.O.J. 26.05.2026)
