Additional written statements must be confined to the plaint amendment; new pleas require formal amendment.

The plaintiff challenged the trial court’s order dated 5 September 2026 accepting the defendants’ rejoinder/additional written statement in O.S. No. 86/2024.

The plaint had been amended to correct the suit-schedule measurement from 8,290 square metres to 8,290 square feet.

The plaintiff submitted that the additional written statement exceeded the scope of that amendment, introduced inconsistent pleas, and sought to resile from admissions made during cross-examination.

The trial court had accepted the pleading without recording findings on those objections.

1. Whether an additional written statement filed in response to an amendment of the plaint may raise pleas beyond the scope of that amendment.

2. Whether the trial court’s order accepting the additional written statement could stand when it had not considered whether the pleading exceeded the amendment or introduced inconsistent pleas.

Order VIII Rule 9 CPC permits a subsequent pleading, including an additional written statement, with the court’s leave; where filed in response to an amendment, it should be confined to answering that amendment.

Order VI Rule 7 CPC prohibits a pleading from raising a new ground or containing factual allegations inconsistent with the party’s earlier pleadings, except by amendment.

A party seeking to introduce new or inconsistent pleas must apply to amend its pleading under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The Court relied on Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 951; Sawan Singh v. Radha Kishan, AIR 1980 HP 8; and Gurdial Singh (citation not specified in the judgment) for these principles.

The amendment to the plaint concerned only the correction of the schedule measurement.

The High Court held that an additional written statement filed in response could not be used to depart from the earlier written statement or introduce new or inconsistent pleas; those changes required an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Although the trial court had not examined whether the pleading exceeded the amendment or displaced prior admissions, the High Court concluded that the additional written statement travelled beyond the earlier pleading and that the acceptance order could not be sustained.

The trial court may consider a further additional written statement confined to the permitted plaint amendment, in accordance with law.

It was also directed to endeavour to dispose of the suit within two years of the order being placed on record.