Defendant Cannot Lead Independent Evidence If Right To File Written Statement Is Closed: Allahabad High Court

"Since there are no pleadings in case written statement is not filed by the defendant, evidence cannot be led on the issues framed in absence of pleadings." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a defendant whose right to file a written statement has been closed cannot be permitted to lead independent evidence.

A single-judge bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam observed that while such a defendant retains the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses to dismantle their case, "permission cannot be granted to the petitioner to lead evidence for want of pleadings."

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The plaintiff instituted a suit for the specific performance of an agreement to sell. The defendant entered an appearance but failed to file a written statement within the prescribed statutory period or the extended timeline, leading the trial court to close his right to file the same. Subsequently, after cross-examining the plaintiff's witnesses, the defendant attempted to submit his own evidence affidavits, which the trial court returned, prompting the defendant to move the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether a defendant who has forfeited the right to file a written statement can still be permitted to lead independent evidence to demolish the plaintiff's case. The court was also called upon to determine if evidence demonstrating a statutory bar to the suit could be introduced without formal pleadings on record.

No Evidence Without Pleadings

The High Court emphasized the foundational role of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Citing Order VI and Order VIII, the court noted that parties must explicitly state the material facts on which they rely. Without a written statement, the court reasoned, there is no defense on record for the plaintiff to meet.

"No amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are foundation of the claim of a litigating party," the bench observed.

Statutory Bars Must Be Specifically Pleaded

The petitioner argued that he only sought to introduce evidence to prove the transaction was prohibited by the Income Tax Act and void ab initio, rather than raising a factual "positive defense." The court rejected this contention, pointing to Order VIII Rule 2 of the CPC, which mandates that any new facts showing a suit is not maintainable or that a transaction is void must be specially pleaded.

The court firmly stated, "If a party omits to plead a material fact, he will not be allowed to give evidence on that fact at the trial unless the court gives him leave to amend his pleading under Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C."

Defendant Can Cross-Examine, But Cannot Lead Evidence

Relying on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo (1988), the court reiterated that striking off a defense does not render the defendant a persona non grata. The defendant retains the equitable right to participate in the proceedings and cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses to demonstrate that they are not speaking the truth.

However, the bench clarified that this right is strictly defensive. "There cannot be any evidence in absence of pleading, therefore, the defendant cannot be permitted to lead evidence once he has been denied to file written statement," the court held.

Indirect Introduction Of Case Impermissible Further fortifying its stance, the court referred to the recent Supreme Court decision in Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel (2024). The bench highlighted that a party cannot indirectly introduce their case and evidence after their right to file a written statement has been forfeited.

Quoting the established legal position, the court noted, "It is fairly settled that no amount of evidence can prove a case of a party who had not set up the same in his/her pleadings."

Concluding that the trial court committed no illegality, the High Court dismissed the petition. The ruling firmly reiterates that while a defendant without a written statement may dismantle the plaintiff's case through cross-examination, they are legally barred from erecting their own evidentiary defense.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2026