Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Rhea Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Commercial O.S. No. 390/2019. The impugned order rejected I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner (plaintiff in the suit) under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking permission to file an additional written statement. The petitioner had taken on lease a commercial property from the respondent (defendant) to establish a hospital and allied healthcare services. After taking possession, the petitioner discovered a title dispute regarding the property and that the respondent had not constructed the required building. Consequently, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance and other reliefs. The defendant filed its written statement, and issues were framed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3 to file an additional written statement to clarify certain aspects of its case. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that it would cause prejudice to the defendant and that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the trial court's order was erroneous. The court noted that the additional written statement was necessary to clarify the plaintiff's case and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant as the trial had not yet commenced. The court held that the trial court had exercised its discretion arbitrarily and that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file the additional written statement. However, considering the delay, the court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the defendant. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and I.A.No.3 was allowed subject to payment of costs within two weeks.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Written Statement - Order VIII Rule 9 CPC - Commercial Suit - The plaintiff sought to file an additional written statement after the defendant had filed its written statement and issues were framed. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that it would cause prejudice to the defendant and that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient cause. The High Court held that the trial court's order was erroneous as the additional written statement was necessary to clarify the plaintiff's case and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant as the trial had not commenced. The court allowed the petition subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application (I.A.No.3) filed under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC seeking permission to file an additional written statement in a commercial suit, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Commercial O.S. No. 390/2019 on I.A.No.3 is quashed. I.A.No.3 is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent/defendant, to be paid within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to file the additional written statement upon payment of costs.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 9 CPC
- Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- Section 16
- Additional Written Statement
- Leave of Court
- Prejudice to Opposite Party
- Costs
