Leave for additional written statement cannot be granted to withdraw categorical admissions made in original pleadings.

The Petitioner-Defendants (licensor) and Respondent-Plaintiff (licensee) entered into a Leave and Licence Agreement for premises in Bandra Kurla Complex.

Upon expiration of the license and return of possession on 7 November 2020, the Plaintiff sued for the refund of a security deposit totaling Rs. 49,93,920/- plus interest.

In their original written statement filed on 4 August 2022, the Defendants admitted their liability to refund the deposit, subject only to a deduction of Rs. 5,42,225/- for outstanding dues.

After the Plaintiff moved for a summary judgment based on these admissions, the Defendants took out a Notice of Motion on 24 March 2023 seeking leave to file an additional written statement and a counter-claim of Rs. 96,82,345/- for repairs and loss of rent.

The Defendants attributed the omission of these claims in the original pleading to the "sheer inadvertence" of their previous counsel.

The City Civil Court rejected the motion, leading to this Writ Petition.

1. Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC to permit additional pleadings that effectively withdraw categorical admissions made in the original written statement.

2. Whether the plea of "advocate's inadvertence" is sufficient to allow a complete departure from earlier pleadings after the plaintiff has moved for a summary judgment.

The court primarily applied Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which restricts pleadings subsequent to the written statement except by leave of the court.

The court distinguished Order VIII Rule 9 from Order VI Rule 17 (amendment of pleadings), noting that while the latter relates back to the original filing, subsequent pleadings stand on a different footing.

Relying on M/s Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co Ltd v. M/s Ladha Ram and Co, the court held that while inconsistent pleas are permissible, amendments that displace the plaintiff completely from the benefit of admissions are impermissible.

Citing P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha, the court noted that leave for additional written statements is usually denied at a belated stage.

The court observed that Order VIII Rule 9 confers discretionary power which must be exercised judiciously.

While a liberal approach is generally adopted for amending written statements compared to plaints, this does not extend to allowing a party to "wriggle out" of clear, multiple, and unequivocal admissions.

The court found that the original written statement contained repeated admissions of the intent to refund the deposit minus specific deductions.

The proposed additional statement was not merely explaining a "stray sentence" or a "mis-statement," but was a "complete departure" designed to salvage the Defendants' position after the Plaintiff filed for summary judgment.

The court rejected the excuse of "advocate’s mistake," noting the Defendants themselves acknowledged that the original statement contained categorical admissions which they now sought to bypass.

The court further noted that the proposed counter-claim lacked essential details such as the date of accrual of cause of action or payment of court fees.

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition with costs and discharged the rule.

The court clarified that the maintainability of any future separate counter-claim remains an issue for the trial court to determine if and when it is filed.