Additional Written Statement Cannot Retract Earlier Pleadings

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court, in Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh (2026), set aside a Calcutta High Court order that had permitted the defendant to file an additional written statement at an advanced stage of civil proceedings. The Court held that a party cannot use an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to introduce a case wholly contradictory to the original defence, and that such an attempt — made after commencement of trial — constitutes a clear abuse of process aimed at circumventing the embargo under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

What was the Background of Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh (2026) Case? 

• Mondira Ghosh filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that Chaitali Ghosh was in unlawful possession of the suit property and for her eviction. 
• In her original written statement filed in December 2022, the defendant claimed to be a bona fide co-sharer of the suit property and denied the plaintiff's claim of unlawful possession. 
• Issues were framed in May 2023, following which the plaintiff's witness was extensively cross-examined. 
• After the trial had commenced, 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 position and claim that she was a tenant under the plaintiff — a stand wholly inconsistent with her original defence of being a co-sharer. 
• The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the defendant could not retract from her earlier plea and substitute it with an inconsistent case, relying on Order VI Rule 7 CPC, which prohibits raising allegations inconsistent with previous pleadings except through amendment. 
• The Calcutta High Court partly allowed the defendant's challenge, permitting the filing of the additional written statement on payment of Rs. 15,000 as costs, while refusing to entertain the counterclaim. 
• Aggrieved, the plaintiff Mondira Ghosh approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

Additional Written Statement Cannot Introduce Contradictory Case: 

• The Court held that the High Court erred in permitting the additional written statement, as the defendant was seeking to do a complete volte-face by changing her status from a bona fide co-sharer to a tenant of the plaintiff. 
• This was not a case of inadvertent omission of facts from the original written statement; rather, it was a deliberate attempt to withdraw an earlier stand and replace it with a wholly contradictory plea. 
• Such a course is contrary to the mandate of Order VI Rule 7 CPC, which prohibits a party from pleading facts inconsistent with its earlier pleadings without seeking formal amendment.

Abuse of Process — Circumventing Order VI Rule 17: 

• The Court observed that the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC was filed only to overcome the embargo contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which restricts amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial. 
• The filing of such an application — particularly after the defendant had failed to seek amendment of her written statement at the appropriate stage — was held to be a clear abuse of process. 
• Permitting such a course would render the restrictions on post-trial amendments meaningless.

Restoration of Trial Court's Order: 

• The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, set aside the Calcutta High Court's order dated September 3, 2025, and restored the Trial Court's order rejecting the defendant's application.

What is a Written Statement? 

About: 

• A written statement is the defendant's reply to the plaintiff's plaint. Order 8 CPC governs all provisions related to it.

Key Rules at a Glance

• Rule 1 — Time Limit:  
  • Must be filed within 30 days of service of summons. 
  • Court may extend up to 90 days (with recorded reasons). 
  • Commercial suits: further extension up to 120 days; after which the right to file is forfeited. 
• Rule 2 — New Facts: All grounds of defence (fraud, limitation, illegality, etc.) must be specifically pleaded; otherwise they cannot be raised later. 
• Rule 3 — Specific Denial: General denial is insufficient; each allegation must be dealt with specifically. 
• Rule 4 — No Evasive Denial: Denial must go to the substance, not merely to the exact form of the allegation. 
• Rule 6 — Set-Off: A defendant may claim set-off of an ascertained sum against the plaintiff's claim, but only at the first hearing unless permitted later. 
• Rule 6B — Counterclaim: Must be specifically stated as a counterclaim in the written statement. 
• Rule 10 — Failure to File: Court may pronounce judgment against the defaulting party or pass any appropriate order.

Case Laws 

• Kailash v. Nankhu (2005): Proviso to Rule 1, Order 8 is directory, not mandatory. 
• Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India (2005): Extension of time under Rule 10 cannot be granted routinely; only in exceptionally hard cases.