Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendant Nos. 2 to 6, challenged an order passed by the trial court granting leave to the respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff) to file subsequent pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for declaration of a 1/3rd share in compensation awarded in land acquisition proceedings, claiming that he, respondent No. 2, and the predecessor of the petitioners were real brothers with equal shares. The petitioners filed their written statement on 31-01-2010, asserting that a written memorandum of partition dated 28-06-1997 had already divided the land. Issues were framed on 12-04-2010. Subsequently, on 18-02-2015, the respondent No. 1 filed an application (Exhibit 53) seeking leave to file an additional written statement to incorporate a plea that the partition deed was not binding as it was not acted upon. The trial court allowed the application, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court examined the scope of Order VIII Rule 9, which permits subsequent pleadings only by leave of court and in exceptional circumstances. The court noted that the plaintiff sought to introduce facts that were within his knowledge at the time of filing the suit, and no exceptional circumstances were shown. The court also observed that issues had already been framed, and allowing additional pleadings would cause prejudice to the defendants. The court held that the trial court's order was passed without considering the necessary legal principles and set it aside. The writ petition was allowed, and the application (Exhibit 53) was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Subsequent Pleadings - Order VIII Rule 9 CPC - Leave to File Additional Written Statement - The trial court granted leave to the plaintiff to file subsequent pleadings after the written statement was filed and issues were framed. The High Court held that such leave can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine. Since the plaintiff sought to introduce new facts that were within his knowledge at the time of filing the suit, and no exceptional circumstances were shown, the order was set aside. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Issues Framed - Prejudice - Order VIII Rule 9 CPC - Filing of subsequent pleadings after issues are framed would cause prejudice to the opposite party as it would alter the nature of the defence. The court must consider whether the proposed pleadings are necessary for determining the real question in controversy and whether the opposite party can be compensated by costs. In this case, the trial court failed to consider these aspects. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting leave to the plaintiff to file subsequent pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after the written statement had been filed and issues had been framed, without there being any exceptional circumstances justifying such filing.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the trial court's order dated 18-02-2015 granting leave to file subsequent pleadings. The application (Exhibit 53) was dismissed.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 9 CPC
- subsequent pleadings
- leave of court
- exceptional circumstances
- issues already framed
- prejudice to opposite party
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (01) 134
Writ Petition No. 5475 of 2015
Ms. Kirti Satpute for petitioners, Shri M.P. Khajanchi for respondent No.1, Shri S.A. Chaudhari for respondent No.2, Shri K. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.3
Shobha W/o Wasudeo Tadas and others
Namdeo S/o Balaji Tadas and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order granting leave to file subsequent pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash and set aside the trial court's order granting leave to the plaintiff to file subsequent pleadings.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff to file an additional written statement after issues were framed, without exceptional circumstances.
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed the plaintiff's application (Exhibit 53) for leave to file subsequent pleadings.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in granting leave to the plaintiff to file subsequent pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC after the written statement was filed and issues were framed.
Whether the proposed subsequent pleadings were necessary for determining the real question in controversy and whether exceptional circumstances existed.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the plaintiff sought to introduce new facts that were within his knowledge at the time of filing the suit, and no exceptional circumstances were shown. They also contended that issues had already been framed and allowing additional pleadings would cause prejudice.
The respondent No. 1 argued that the subsequent pleadings were necessary to bring on record the fact that the partition deed was not acted upon, and that the court had discretion to allow such pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to file subsequent pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine. When issues have already been framed, allowing additional pleadings would cause prejudice to the opposite party. The court must consider whether the proposed pleadings are necessary for determining the real question in controversy and whether the opposite party can be compensated by costs. In this case, no exceptional circumstances were shown, and the trial court's order was set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners who are the original defendant Nos.2 to 6 are aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court below Exhibit 53 granting leave to the respondent No.1 – original plaintiff to file subsequent pleadings under provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The trial Court while allowing the application has observed that the plaintiff wants to bring on record the fact that the partition deed was not acted upon and that the same was necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties.
The power to grant leave to file subsequent pleadings is not to be exercised as a matter of routine. It is only in exceptional circumstances that such leave can be granted.
In the present case, the plaintiff sought to introduce facts which were within his knowledge at the time of filing the suit. No exceptional circumstances were shown to exist. The trial Court erred in granting leave.
Procedural History
The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration of share in compensation. The petitioners filed written statement on 31-01-2010. Issues were framed on 12-04-2010. On 18-02-2015, the respondent No. 1 filed an application (Exhibit 53) for leave to file subsequent pleadings, which was allowed by the trial court. The petitioners challenged this order by filing the present writ petition on 28-09-2015. The High Court heard the matter on 11-12-2015 and pronounced judgment on 15-01-2016.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VIII Rule 9
