Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a civil suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff, Mondira Ghosh, against the defendant, Chaitali Ghosh, in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant was in unlawful possession of the suit premises and sought her eviction. The defendant filed her written statement on 08.12.2022, claiming to be a bona fide co-sharer of the suit premises. Issues were framed on 17.05.2023, and the trial commenced with the examination and cross-examination of PW-1 on multiple dates. At that stage, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to file an additional written statement along with a counter claim, wherein she changed her stand to claim that she was a tenant under the plaintiff. The Trial Court rejected the application, observing that the defendant could not retract from her earlier stand and bring in an inconsistent case. The defendant then filed a revision under Article 227 before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court allowed the additional written statement on payment of costs of ₹15,000, but rejected the counter claim. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding that the additional written statement sought to introduce a completely inconsistent and contradictory stand, which is not permissible under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. The Court emphasized that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC does not allow a party to change its stand in the guise of an additional written statement, and that the High Court's reasoning was flawed as it failed to appreciate that the defendant's earlier stand was not a case of inadvertent omission but a deliberate change of position. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's order and allowed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Written Statement - Order 8 Rule 9 CPC - Inconsistent Pleadings - The defendant initially claimed to be a bona fide co-sharer in the original written statement but later sought to file an additional written statement claiming to be a tenant of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that such a complete volte-face and introduction of a totally inconsistent stand is not permissible under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, as it is contrary to the mandate of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC which prohibits inconsistent pleadings. (Paras 2, 5, 7, 11-12) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Proviso - The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC bars amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial in the ordinary course. The High Court erred in permitting the additional written statement as it effectively bypassed this embargo. The Supreme Court held that leave under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC should not be granted if the object is to circumvent the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. (Paras 9, 11-12) C) Civil Procedure - Counter Claim - Order 8 Rule 6A CPC - The High Court correctly rejected the counter claim as it was sought to be filed after cross-examination of the first plaintiff witness, which is not permissible after commencement of trial except in exceptional cases. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in permitting the defendant to file an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC when it sought to introduce a completely inconsistent and contradictory stand to that taken in the original written statement, after the trial had commenced.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Calcutta High Court dated 03.09.2025, and restored the order of the Trial Court dated 17.06.2025 rejecting the defendant's application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 9 CPC does not permit filing of additional written statement to introduce an inconsistent or contradictory stand
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC prohibits amendment after trial commencement except in exceptional circumstances
- Additional written statement cannot be used to bypass the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- A party cannot retract from its earlier stand and bring in an altogether inconsistent case
