Tenant In Eviction Suit Can’t Change Pleadings Based On Witness’s Readiness To Testify, Madras HC Upholds Refusal

The respondents filed a suit seeking eviction, arrears of rent, damages and compensation against the petitioner.

When the suit reached trial, the petitioner applied under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC for leave to file an additional written statement.

He claimed that he had paid the respondents an advance of ₹1,00,000 and rent of ₹3,800 on 31 July 2022, in the presence of Murugesan, who was then unwilling to testify but had since become willing to do so.

The District Munsif Court dismissed the application.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order VIII Rule 9 CPC governs the filing of subsequent pleadings and was the provision under which the petitioner sought leave to file an additional written statement.

The Court held that parties cannot alter their pleadings according to the willingness or “mood” of witnesses they intend to examine; a witness’s later readiness to testify does not, by itself, satisfy the requirement for filing an additional written statement.

The petition invoked Article 227, under which the High Court was asked to review the subordinate court’s order.

The petitioner’s application rested on the assertion that Murugesan, who allegedly witnessed the payment, had become willing to give evidence.

The Court concluded that this change in the witness’s readiness did not provide a sufficient basis to amend the petitioner’s pleadings through an additional written statement.

Because the affidavit disclosed no ground satisfying Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, the District Munsif Court had rightly dismissed the application; the High Court found no basis to interfere with that order.

The connected CMP was also dismissed.