Order 8 Rule 9 | Defendant Cannot Introduce Inconsistent Stand Via Additional Written Statement To Bypass Bar On Amending Pleadings After Trial: Supreme Court

"This retraction of her earlier stand and introduction of a totally inconsistent and contradictory stand by the defendant, in the guise of filing an additional written statement, was contrary to the mandate of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, " Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 26, 2026, held that a defendant cannot be permitted to change their legal stand entirely by filing an additional written statement at an advanced stage of a suit.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that such a maneuver is often an "abuse of process" intended to bypass the strict statutory restrictions against amending pleadings after the trial has commenced. The Court emphasized that Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) cannot be used as a tool to introduce inconsistent or contradictory pleas that were not part of the original defense.

The dispute arose from a title suit filed by Mondira Ghosh (plaintiff) against Chaitali Ghosh (defendant) seeking eviction and a declaration of unlawful possession. In her original written statement filed in 2022, the defendant claimed she was a "bonafide co-sharer" of the suit premises. However, in 2025, after the trial had commenced and the plaintiff’s first witness had been cross-examined, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. She sought to file an additional written statement claiming she was actually a "tenant" under the plaintiff, a complete departure from her earlier claim of being a co-owner.

The primary question before the Court was whether a defendant can be permitted to file an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC that introduces a stand completely inconsistent with the original written statement. Furthermore, the Court was called upon to determine if such an application is maintainable once the trial has already commenced, in light of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

Order 8 Rule 9 CPC Cannot Be Used To Avoid Proviso To Order 6 Rule 17

The Court noted that while Order 8 Rule 9 CPC allows for subsequent pleadings, it is not an absolute right and is generally subject to the Court’s requirement. The bench observed that the High Court, despite identifying the correct legal position, erred in allowing the defendant’s request. The Court highlighted that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC acts as a significant hurdle for amending pleadings after a trial begins, and litigants cannot be allowed to use Order 8 Rule 9 as a backdoor to circumvent this "embargo."

"The very filing of such an application by the defendant, having failed to seek amendment of her written statement at the appropriate stage and after the trial in the suit had already commenced, was clearly an abuse of process," the bench observed. The Court agreed with the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s strategy was a "ploy" adopted to get over the strict requirements of showing due diligence required for post-trial amendments.

Inconsistent Pleadings Barred Under Order 6 Rule 7 CPC

The Supreme Court expressed sharp disapproval of the defendant’s attempt to perform a "volte-face" regarding her status in the suit premises. The bench pointed out that Order 6 Rule 7 CPC explicitly posits that no pleading shall raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the same party. By shifting the claim from being a "co-sharer" to a "tenant," the defendant introduced a contradictory stand that prejudiced the plaintiff’s case.

The Court noted that this was not a case where a party had inadvertently missed stating certain facts that needed to be brought on record for a fair adjudication. Instead, it was a deliberate attempt to retract an earlier stand. The bench held that the Trial Court was fully justified in its original decision to reject the application, as a defendant cannot be allowed to retract from a stand taken in the original written statement to bring in an altogether inconsistent case.

"Leave under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC should not be granted if the object thereof is to bypass the embargo stipulated in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC."

Trial Court’s Discretion Upheld Over High Court’s Interference

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s decision to permit the additional written statement on the grounds of "deciding the real controversy." The bench held that while courts generally lean towards adjudicating the actual dispute, they cannot do so by ignoring procedural mandates that prevent the trial from being derailed. The fact that the trial had reached the stage of cross-examination was a critical factor that the High Court failed to give sufficient weight to.

The bench concluded that the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s order. By allowing the inconsistent additional written statement, the High Court had effectively permitted a retraction of an earlier stand, which is impermissible once the trial process is underway. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's order, thereby dismissing the defendant's application for filing the additional written statement.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Calcutta High Court's order dated September 3, 2025. The Court restored the Trial Court's order, reinforcing the principle that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC is not a mechanism to introduce inconsistent defenses or bypass the rigors of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC once a trial has commenced.

Date of Decision: May 26, 2026