An additional written statement cannot be used after commencement of trial to completely retract an earlier stand and introduce a mutually destructive defence in circumvention of the bar under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC

on

Facts

The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking declaration that the defendant was in unlawful possession of the suit premises and for her eviction. In the original written statement filed on 08.12.2022, the defendant claimed that she was a bona fide co-sharer in the suit property. Paras 5–6.

Issues were framed on 17.05.2023 and trial commenced thereafter. The plaintiff’s witness was extensively cross-examined on multiple dates. At this advanced stage, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file an additional written statement along with a counterclaim. 

By the proposed additional written statement, the defendant sought to abandon her earlier plea of co-sharership and instead claimed that she was a tenant under the plaintiff. The Trial Court rejected the application holding that the defendant could not retract from her earlier stand and introduce an inconsistent case after commencement of trial. Paras 7–8.

The High Court partly allowed the defendant’s petition under Art.227 Const. of India, permitting filing of the additional written statement upon payment of costs while refusing the counterclaim. 

Issues Framed

Whether a defendant may, by filing an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, completely change the defence originally pleaded after commencement of trial and thereby circumvent the restriction contained in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. (Paras 11–13)

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court held that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC permits filing of subsequent pleadings only in limited circumstances and ordinarily only when required by the Court.

(b) The Court observed that the defendant was not merely seeking to add omitted facts or clarify an existing defence. Instead, she sought to “completely change her stand with regard to her status and claim for being in possession.” The earlier plea of co-sharership was sought to be replaced by an entirely inconsistent plea of tenancy.

(c) The Court held that such a “complete volte-face” was directly contrary to Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, which prohibits pleadings inconsistent with earlier pleadings except through proper amendment. Para 11.

(d) The Court further held that the defendant’s application constituted an abuse of process because it was filed after commencement of trial solely to bypass the embargo contained in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which restricts amendment of pleadings after trial has commenced. (Para 12)

(e) The Court criticised the High Court for correctly recognising the legal embargo under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, yet nevertheless permitting the additional written statement on equitable considerations. The Court held that procedural restrictions could not be circumvented under the guise of inadvertent omission.

Held

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order permitting the additional written statement, and restored the Trial Court’s order rejecting the application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. Parties were directed to bear their own costs. (Paras 13–14)

Ratio

After commencement of trial, a defendant cannot invoke Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to introduce an additional written statement that retracts an earlier defence and substitutes a wholly inconsistent case, particularly where the attempt is designed to circumvent the restriction on amendment contained in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 545
Decided on: 26 May 2026
Case Title: Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Kumar, J.; K. Vinod Chandran, J.