Defendant Cannot Change the Entire Defence After Trial Begins by Filing an Additional Written Statement

Case Name: Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh

Citation: 2026 INSC 545

Date of Judgment/Order: May 26, 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Held: The Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot use Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to file an additional written stat ment at an advanced stage of the suit in order to completely change the defence already taken in the original written statement. If the defendant earlier claimed to be a co-sharer of the property, she cannot later take a contradictory stand that she is a tenant under the plaintiff, especially after issues have been framed and trial has commenced. Such a course is contrary to Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, which prohibits pleadings inconsistent with earlier pleadings, and also amounts to an attempt to bypass the restriction under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on amendments after commencement of trial.

Summary: The plaintiff, Mondira Ghosh, filed a suit seeking declaration that the defendant, Chaitali Ghosh, was in unlawful possession of the suit premises and sought her eviction along with damages and costs. In her original written statement filed on 08.12.2022, the defendant claimed that she was a bona fide co-sharer of the suit premises. Issues were framed on 17.05.2023, and the trial commenced with examination and lengthy cross-examination of PW-1 on several dates. At that stage, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file an additional written statement along with a counterclaim. In the proposed additional written statement, she changed her stand and claimed to be a tenant under the plaintiff. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that such an inconsistent case could not be introduced after trial had begun. The Calcutta High Court partly allowed the application and permitted the additional written statement, though it refused to take the counterclaim on record. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly noticed the law but wrongly applied it. This was not a case where an omitted fact was being supplied; rather, the defendant was attempting a complete volte-face from co-sharer to tenant, which was impermissible.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order dated 03.09.2025 in C.O. No. 3172 of 2025, and restored the Trial Court’s Order No. 18 dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Xth Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1527 of 2022. The defendant’s application to file an additional written statement was therefore rejected. The Court held that the Trial Court’s view was fully justified on facts and in law. Parties were directed to bear their own costs, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.