The Supreme Court has held that a defendant cannot be permitted to fundamentally alter the nature of her defence by filing an additional written statement at an advanced stage of trial, especially where such a move introduces a completely inconsistent stand.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ruled that the device of an additional written statement cannot be used to circumvent restrictions applicable to amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial.
The bench set aside the Calcutta High Court order which had permitted filing of an additional written statement and restored the Trial Court’s order rejecting the same.
The dispute arose from a title suit instituted by Mondira Ghosh before the City Civil Court at Calcutta seeking a declaration that the defendant was in unlawful possession of the suit property, along with eviction, damages and costs. Initially, the defendant had filed her written statement asserting that she was a bona fide co-sharer of the property and therefore denied the plaintiff’s claim.
After issues had been framed and trial had commenced, the plaintiff’s witness underwent extensive cross-examination on several dates. At this stage, the defendant moved an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permission to file an additional written statement along with a counterclaim.
The Trial Court rejected the application. It noted that the defendant had initially claimed to be a co-sharer but later attempted to assert a completely different status by claiming tenancy under the plaintiff. The Trial Court held that a party could not retract from an earlier position and introduce a contradictory case at such a late stage. It referred to Order VI Rule 7 CPC which bars pleadings containing allegations inconsistent with previous pleadings except through proper amendment procedures.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the defendant approached the Calcutta High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court partly allowed the plea and permitted filing of the additional written statement upon payment of ₹15,000 as costs, although it declined permission to bring a counterclaim on record because trial had already commenced.
However, the Supreme Court found fault with the High Court’s approach. The Court observed that the High Court had itself correctly acknowledged that amendments after commencement of trial face restrictions under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and that leave under Order VIII Rule 9 should not become a method to bypass such statutory limitations.
The Supreme Court emphasised that the present matter was not a case where certain facts had inadvertently been omitted from the original written statement. Instead, it was a case where the defendant intended to entirely reverse her position regarding the basis of possession of the property. Earlier she had claimed to be a co-sharer, whereas later she sought to claim tenancy rights — a complete shift in legal position.
The Court held that introducing such a contradictory position under the guise of an additional written statement directly violated the mandate of Order VI Rule 7 CPC. It observed that the move amounted to an abuse of process and was essentially an attempt to overcome the procedural hurdle contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC relating to amendments after commencement of trial.
The Bench ultimately concluded that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated both facts and law while rejecting the defendant’s application. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order and restored the Trial Court’s decision. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Mondira Ghosh Versus Chaitali Ghosh
Citation: JURISHOUR-1402-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34411 of 2025
Date: 26/05/2026
