Defendant cannot file additional written statement to introduce inconsistent pleas or retract admissions after trial commences.

The Appellant (plaintiff) filed a title suit for declaration, eviction, and damages against the Respondent (defendant), alleging unlawful possession of the suit premises

In her original written statement filed on 08.12.2022, the defendant claimed she was a "bonafide co-sharer"

After issues were framed and trial commenced with the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s first witness (PW-1), the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC to submit an additional written statement and a counter-claim

In this new pleading, the defendant shifted her stance, claiming she was a "tenant" under the plaintiff rather than a co-sharer

The Trial Court rejected the application, but the Calcutta High Court partially allowed it, permitting the additional written statement upon payment of costs, while disallowing the counter-claim

1. Whether a defendant can be permitted to file an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC that introduces a plea inconsistent with and contradictory to the original written statement

2. Whether the filing of such an application after the commencement of trial constitutes an attempt to bypass the statutory restrictions imposed by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC

Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC, which restricts the filing of subsequent pleadings after the written statement unless required by the Court or in defense to a set-off/counter-claim

Order 6 Rule 7 of the CPC, which prohibits pleadings from raising new grounds of claim or allegations of fact inconsistent with previous pleadings except by way of amendment

The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which mandates that no application for amendment of pleadings shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence

The Court reasoned that the defendant’s attempt to change her status from a "co-sharer" to a "tenant" was a complete volte-face and a "retraction of her earlier stand"

This introduction of a totally inconsistent and contradictory position was found to be in direct violation of the mandate of Order 6 Rule 7

The Court criticized the High Court’s logic, noting that this was not a case of "inadvertent omission" but a deliberate attempt to fill a void after the trial had already progressed

The Court observed that since the trial had commenced and the witness (PW-1) had been cross-examined, the application was a "ploy" and an "abuse of process" designed to circumvent the strict embargo on amendments after the start of trial as stipulated in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order dated 03.09.2025, thereby restoring the Trial Court’s order of 17.06.2025