Latest JudgementCode of Civil Procedure, 1908

Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh, 2026

Defendant Cannot Radically Change Defence Through Additional Written Statement After Trial Begins.

Supreme Court of India·1 June 2026

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

1 June 2026

Judges

Justice Sanjay Kumar & Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Order VIII Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Order VI Rule 7, CPC Order VI Rule 17, CPC Proviso to Order VI Rule 17, CPC

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, Mondira Ghosh, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the defendant, Chaitali Ghosh, was in unlawful possession of the suit property and sought her eviction.

In her original written statement filed in December 2022, the defendant denied the plaintiff's claim and asserted that she was a bona fide co-sharer in the property.
Issues in the suit were framed in May 2023.
Thereafter, the plaintiff's witness was extensively cross-examined and the trial had substantially progressed.
At this stage, the defendant filed an application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file an additional written statement along with a counterclaim.
Through the proposed additional written statement, the defendant sought to completely change her earlier stand.
Instead of claiming to be a co-sharer, she now sought to contend that she was a tenant under the plaintiff.
The trial court rejected the application, holding that such a contradictory plea could not be introduced at that stage.
The Calcutta High Court partly allowed the defendant's challenge and permitted filing of the additional written statement upon payment of costs.
The plaintiff challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court.

Whether a defendant can file an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC introducing a defence completely inconsistent with the original written statement?
Whether a defendant can withdraw an earlier plea and substitute it with a contradictory case after commencement of trial?
Whether Order VI Rule 7 CPC prohibits a party from taking a stand inconsistent with previous pleadings?
Whether an additional written statement can be used to bypass the restrictions contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC?
Whether the High Court was justified in permitting the additional written statement at an advanced stage of the trial?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff.
The Court set aside the Calcutta High Court's order permitting the additional written statement.
The Bench restored the trial court's order rejecting the defendant's application.
The Court observed that the defendant had initially claimed to be a co-sharer of the property.
Through the proposed additional written statement, she attempted a complete volte-face by claiming the status of a tenant.
The Bench held that the new plea was fundamentally inconsistent with the original defence.
The Court noted that this was not a case of inadvertent omission of facts from the original written statement.
Rather, the defendant sought to abandon her earlier case and substitute it with a wholly contradictory stand.
The Court held that such conduct violated the mandate of Order VI Rule 7 CPC.
It further observed that the application was filed only to circumvent the restrictions imposed by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC after commencement of trial.
The Bench characterized the application as a clear abuse of process of law.

A defendant cannot radically alter the nature of her defence through an additional written statement after trial has commenced.
Additional written statements cannot be used to introduce a completely contradictory and inconsistent case.
Order VI Rule 7 CPC prohibits departure from earlier pleadings through inconsistent allegations.
Order VIII Rule 9 CPC cannot be used to bypass the restrictions imposed by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
The defendant's application constituted an abuse of process of law.
The trial court rightly rejected the application.

The judgment reinforces the principle that pleadings form the foundation of civil litigation and parties must remain consistent with their pleaded case.
The Court emphasized that procedural provisions cannot be manipulated to fundamentally alter the nature of a dispute after trial has begun.
By distinguishing between an omitted fact and a contradictory plea, the Court clarified the limits of subsequent pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC.
The ruling protects the integrity of trial proceedings by preventing parties from changing their defence after assessing the strength or weakness of evidence already recorded.
The judgment also strengthens the purpose behind the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which seeks to prevent delayed and prejudicial amendments after commencement of trial.
The decision discourages tactical litigation strategies designed to prolong proceedings or create confusion.
The Court's characterization of the application as an abuse of process underscores the judiciary's intolerance toward attempts to circumvent statutory procedural safeguards.
The ruling serves as an important precedent in civil litigation concerning amendment of pleadings and consistency of defence.