Defendant failing to file written statement cannot lead independent evidence in absence of pleadings.

The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell

The petitioner (defendant) appeared but failed to file a written statement within the statutory period or the extended time granted by the court; consequently, the trial court closed the defendant’s right to file a written statement on 05.07.2022

While the defendant was permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses, the trial court, vide order dated 11.11.2025, returned the evidence affidavit filed by the defendant and closed his right to lead independent evidence

The defendant challenged this order, contending he had a right to lead evidence to prove the suit was prohibited by law (Income Tax Act) even without a written statement

1. Whether a defendant whose right to file a written statement has been closed can be permitted to lead independent evidence to demolish the plaintiff’s case

2. Whether the right to participate in proceedings and cross-examine witnesses inherently includes the right to adduce evidence in the absence of formal pleadings

The court applied Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC regarding the timeline for filing written statements

Order VIII Rule 10 regarding the consequences of failure to do so

It emphasized Order VI Rules 1 and 2, which define "pleadings" and mandate that evidence must follow material facts pleaded

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, which held that while a defendant without a defense can cross-examine, they cannot lead their own evidence

Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel v. M/S. S.J.R. Prime Corporation, which affirmed that no amount of evidence can be looked into without a foundation in pleadings

The court also cited Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal regarding the necessity of issues arising from pleadings

The Court reasoned that the primary object of pleadings is to narrow the parties to definite issues and prevent surprise

It held that under the CPC, evidence "cannot be let in without the pleading"

While the defendant remains persona grata and may cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses to point out weaknesses or inconsistencies, this participation is "hedged in by several limitations"

The Court clarified that since the defendant’s right to file a written statement was closed, there were no "material facts" on record for the defendant to prove through evidence

Allowing the defendant to lead evidence under the guise of demonstrating a legal bar (such as the Income Tax Act) would effectively bypass the forfeiture of the right to file a written statement and cause prejudice to the plaintiff

The Court distinguished the petitioner’s reliance on Pandit Gopi Charan Bajpai, noting it did not override the established principle that evidence without pleadings is a "futile" exercise

The High Court upheld the trial court's order dated 11.11.2025, ruling that the petitioner's right is limited to cross-examination and legal arguments based on the existing record

The petition was dismissed