SC on Additional Written Statements in Civil Suits

By Team @ Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.
Reviewed by: Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. Legal Team
Last Updated: 10 June 2026

Quick Answer

In Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh, decided on 26 May 2026, the Supreme Court considered whether a defendant could file an additional written statement after commencement of trial and take a position completely inconsistent with the defence originally pleaded. The Court held that such a course was impermissible in the facts of the case. It found that the defendant was attempting to replace an earlier stand with a contradictory one and use procedural provisions to overcome restrictions that would otherwise apply to amendment of pleadings.

Why This Judgment Matters

Civil litigation often turns on pleadings. Courts frame issues and conduct trials based on the claims and defences presented by the parties. If parties are permitted to fundamentally alter their positions after trial has progressed, the fairness and efficiency of proceedings may be seriously affected.

This judgment is important because it clarifies the limits of filing an additional written statement under the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision emphasises that such pleadings cannot be used as a device to introduce a completely contradictory case after substantial progress has been made in the trial.

The ruling is relevant for litigants, businesses, lawyers and law students involved in civil disputes. It highlights the importance of adopting a clear and consistent litigation strategy from the outset and reinforces the role of procedural safeguards in ensuring orderly adjudication.

Brief Facts

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the defendant was in unlawful possession of the suit premises and sought eviction, damages and costs. In her original written statement, the defendant claimed that she was a bona fide co-sharer in the property and denied the plaintiff’s claims.

Issues were framed and the trial commenced. The plaintiff’s witness was examined and extensively cross-examined over multiple hearings. After the trial had already progressed, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to file an additional written statement together with a counterclaim.

The Trial Court rejected the application. It noted that the defendant had originally asserted co-sharer status but now sought to claim that she was a tenant under the plaintiff. The Trial Court considered this to be a completely inconsistent position and dismissed the application.

The High Court partly reversed that decision by permitting the additional written statement, though it declined to allow the counterclaim. The plaintiff then approached the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issue

The Supreme Court considered the following questions:

1. Can a defendant file an additional written statement after commencement of trial to introduce a completely inconsistent defence?

2. Can procedural provisions relating to additional written statements be used to overcome restrictions that would otherwise apply to amendment of pleadings?

3. Whether the High Court was justified in permitting the additional written statement in the facts of the case?

What the Court Held

Additional Written Statements Have Limited Scope

The Court examined Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC and observed that additional pleadings are not ordinarily contemplated after a written statement has already been filed. The provision allows such pleadings only in limited circumstances and when required by the Court.

Contradictory Defence Was Not Permissible

The Supreme Court emphasised that this was not a case where the defendant had merely omitted certain facts from the original written statement. Instead, the defendant sought to completely alter her position.

Originally, she claimed to be a bona fide co-sharer of the property. Through the proposed additional written statement, she sought to assert that she was a tenant under the plaintiff. The Court regarded this as a complete retraction of the earlier defence and the introduction of a contradictory case.

Procedural Rules Cannot Be Circumvented

The Court noted that the trial had already commenced and substantial proceedings had taken place. It observed that the attempt to file the additional written statement appeared designed to avoid the restrictions that would have applied had the defendant sought amendment of her pleadings at that stage.

According to the Court, such use of procedural provisions amounted to an abuse of process. The Trial Court was therefore justified in rejecting the application.

High Court Order Set Aside

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in allowing the additional written statement. It restored the Trial Court’s order rejecting the defendant’s application.

Practical Takeaways

• Parties should adopt a clear and consistent defence at the outset of litigation.

• Additional written statements cannot automatically be used to introduce contradictory claims.

• Courts may closely scrutinise attempts to alter positions after trial has commenced.

• Procedural provisions should not be used to bypass restrictions applicable to amendments.

• Litigation strategy should be carefully considered before pleadings are filed.

What the Judgment Does Not Decide

• The final merits of the underlying property dispute.

• Whether the plaintiff’s substantive claims ultimately succeed.

• The legality of every additional written statement filed in civil proceedings.

• Questions unrelated to the procedural issue before the Court.

• Any broader rights of tenancy or co-ownership beyond the facts of the case.

Short Ratio

A defendant cannot use an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to completely retract an earlier defence and introduce a contradictory case after commencement of trial. Procedural provisions cannot be employed to circumvent restrictions that would otherwise govern amendment of pleadings.