A defendant cannot use an additional written statement as a vehicle to abandon an earlier stand and introduce an entirely new and contradictory defence after a civil trial has already begun, the Supreme Court has ruled while overturning a Calcutta High Court order.
The judgment came from a Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, which restored a trial court’s decision rejecting an application filed under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
At the heart of the dispute was a property suit filed by Mondira Ghosh, who sought a declaration that Chaitali Ghosh was unlawfully occupying the property and should be evicted. In her original written statement submitted in December 2022, the defendant maintained that she was a bona fide co-sharer of the property and disputed the plaintiff’s claims.
The litigation had already progressed significantly. Issues were framed in May 2023, and the plaintiff’s witness had undergone substantial cross-examination when the defendant sought permission to file an additional written statement along with a counterclaim.
However, the proposed pleading marked a dramatic departure from the defendant’s earlier position. Instead of claiming co-ownership, she sought to assert that she occupied the property as a tenant under the plaintiff.
The trial court refused the request, holding that a party could not simply withdraw an earlier defence and substitute it with an entirely inconsistent version of events. The court relied on Order VI Rule 7 CPC, which restricts parties from introducing allegations inconsistent with their previous pleadings except through a proper amendment process.
The Calcutta High Court later granted partial relief by allowing the additional written statement to be filed upon payment of Rs.15,000 as costs, although it declined to entertain the counterclaim.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
According to the Bench, the defendant was attempting a complete reversal of her position regarding the basis of her possession. The Court observed that the shift from claiming co-sharer status to asserting tenancy was not a clarification or supplementation of existing pleadings but an outright contradiction.
The judges stressed that the case did not involve facts accidentally omitted from the original written statement. Instead, it reflected an attempt to replace one defence with another that was fundamentally incompatible with the earlier stand.
The Court further noted that permitting such a move would undermine the framework of the CPC, particularly the restrictions imposed by Order VI Rule 17, which limits amendments to pleadings once a trial has commenced. Filing an additional written statement in these circumstances, the Bench said, appeared to be an effort to sidestep those procedural safeguards.
Describing the application as an abuse of the judicial process, the Court held that litigants cannot employ additional pleadings to achieve what procedural law would otherwise prohibit through belated amendments.
As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s September 3, 2025 order, and reinstated the trial court’s refusal to permit the additional written statement.
