Retraction Of Earlier Stand & Introduction Of Contradictory Stand In Guise Of Filing Additional Written Statement Contrary To Order 6 Rule 7 CPC Mandate: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal where the change of stand by the defendant was the cause for grievance.
While dealing with a civil matter where the defendant wanted to completely change her stand with regard to her claim for being in possession of a property, the Supreme Court has observed that the retraction of the defendant’s earlier stand and introduction of a totally inconsistent stand in the guise of filing an additional written statement is contrary to the mandate of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal where the change of stand by the defendant, by way of an additional written statement filed at an advanced stage in the suit, was the cause for grievance.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated, “On the other hand, the defendant wanted to completely change her stand with regard to her status and claim for being in possession. Earlier, she had stated that she was a bonafide co-sharer of the suit premises but by way of the additional written statement, she wanted to do a complete volte-face by claiming to be the tenant of the plaintiff. 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.”
Advocate Dibyadyuti Banerjee represented the Appellant while AOR Tapan Bijoy Deb Choudhury represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
A title suit was filed by the plaintiff appellant before the City Civil Court for a declaration that the defendant respondent was in unlawful possession of the suit premises and seeking her eviction therefrom, along with damages and costs. The defendant filed her written statement in the suit wherein she claimed that she was a bona fide co-sharer of the suit premises. She, accordingly, denied the plaintiff’s claim and sought dismissal of the suit with costs. Issues were framed in the suit. The trial commenced thereupon with the examination of PW-1, who was thereafter cross-examined. The defendant then filed the subject application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to permit her to file an additional written statement along with a counterclaim. This application was rejected by the Trial Court, observing that the defendant had earlier claimed to be a bona fide co-sharer, whereas by way of the additional written statement, she claimed that she was a tenant under the plaintiff.
It was observed that a defendant in a suit could not be allowed to retract from the stand taken in the original written statement and bring in an altogether inconsistent case. Reference was made to Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, which posits that no pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same. When the matter reached the High Court, it was observed that the delay in seeking leave to file an additional written statement was satisfactorily explained by the defendant, and the Court permitted the additional written statement to be filed within a time frame, upon payment of costs of ₹15,000.
Reasoning
The Bench explained that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC states that no pleading shall ordinarily be presented after the filing of a written statement unless it is by way of defence to a set-off or counter claim, and allows the filing of an additional written statement only when the Court requires it.
“Viewed in that light, the learned Judge was not correct in opining that the defendant had failed to state certain facts in the original written statement by inadvertence. This was not a case of a fact not having been stated in the written statement and that void being sought to be filled up by way of an additional written statement. On the other hand, the defendant wanted to completely change her stand with regard to her status and claim for being in possession”, it added.
The Bench stated that the retraction of the respondent’s earlier stand and introduction of a totally inconsistent stand was contrary to the mandate of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC. As per the Bench, 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. “As noted by the learned Judge himself, this ploy was adopted to get over the hurdle raised by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which would not have permitted the defendant to seek amendment of her written statement”, it added.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court and restored the Order of the Trial Court.
Cause Title: Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 545)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Sumedha Halder, AOR Abhijit Sengupta, Advocates Amit Kumar Sinha, Aditya Prasad
Respondent: AOR Tapan Bijoy Deb Choudhury, Advocates Tapan Choudhury, Tarun Choudhury