Mondira Ghoshv.Chaitali Ghosh

Legal Analysis: Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh

Citation: 2026 INSC 545
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Decision: May 26, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34411 of 2025 against the order of the Calcutta High Court permitting filing of an additional written statement.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant was in unlawful possession and sought eviction. The defendant filed a written statement claiming she was a bona fide co‑sharer. Issues were framed and trial commenced; the plaintiff’s witness was examined and cross‑examined. Thereafter, the defendant sought leave under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to file an additional written statement, now claiming she was a tenant under the plaintiff – a complete volte‑face from her earlier stand. The Trial Court rejected the application. The High Court, in revision, permitted the additional written statement on payment of costs, holding that the new facts were necessary for deciding the real controversy. The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. It held that the defendant’s attempt to introduce a totally inconsistent and contradictory case was contrary to Order 6 Rule 7 CPC and amounted to an abuse of process, especially when the amendment of pleadings was barred by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC after commencement of trial.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh

• Citation: 2026 INSC 545

• Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34411 of 2025

• Bench: Division Bench (Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran)

• Date of Decision: May 26, 2026

• Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

• Impugned Order: Order dated 03.09.2025 of the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 3172 of 2025.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 6 Rule 7 (pleadings not to be inconsistent), Order 6 Rule 17 (amendment of pleadings – proviso bars amendment after commencement of trial), Order 8 Rule 9 (subsequent pleadings – additional written statement only when required by court or in defence to set‑off/counterclaim).

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction of High Court).

Key Precedents Impliedly Applied

• No specific precedents are cited in the judgment. The Court relied on the plain language of Order 6 Rule 7, Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, and the principle that a party cannot be allowed to retract from its earlier pleadings and set up an altogether inconsistent case, especially after the trial has commenced.

3. Relevant Facts

• Suit: Title Suit No. 1527 of 2022 filed by Mondira Ghosh (plaintiff) against Chaitali Ghosh (defendant) seeking declaration of unlawful possession and eviction from suit premises.

• Written statement (08.12.2022): Defendant claimed she was a “bonafide co‑sharer” of the suit premises and denied the plaintiff’s claim.

• Issues framed: 17.05.2023.

• Trial commenced: Examination of PW‑1 (plaintiff’s witness) who was cross‑examined on 18.12.2023, 18.03.2024 and 24.07.2024.

• Application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC: Defendant sought leave to file an additional written statement along with a counterclaim. In the proposed additional written statement, she changed her stand entirely – now claiming she was a tenant under the plaintiff.

• Trial Court order (17.06.2025): Rejected the application, noting that the defendant was trying to retract from her earlier stand and bring in an inconsistent case; trial had already commenced; the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 barred amendment; also observed Order 6 Rule 7 prohibits inconsistent pleadings.

• High Court order (03.09.2025): Allowed the additional written statement (but not the counterclaim) on payment of costs of ₹15,000/-, holding that the new facts were necessary for deciding the real controversy and the delay was explained.

• Supreme Court: Plaintiff appealed.

4. Issues

• Issue No. 1: Whether a defendant who has filed a written statement claiming to be a co‑sharer can later, after issues are framed and trial has commenced, be permitted to file an additional written statement claiming to be a tenant – a position totally inconsistent with the earlier pleading – in the guise of “additional” pleading under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC.

• Issue No. 2: Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside the Trial Court’s reasoned order rejecting such an application, when the application was clearly an abuse of process designed to bypass the prohibition on amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Order 8 Rule 9 CPC does not permit filing of an additional written statement that changes the defendant’s stand to an inconsistent and contradictory position (Paras 11-12).
The Court held that the purpose of an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC is to supply omitted facts or to meet a set‑off or counterclaim, not to enable a party to completely retract from an earlier pleaded case. Here, the defendant originally claimed to be a co‑sharer; in the proposed additional written statement, she claimed to be a tenant. These two positions are mutually inconsistent. Such a volte‑face is impermissible.

B. Order 6 Rule 7 CPC prohibits inconsistent pleadings.
The Court noted that Order 6 Rule 7 CPC states that no pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings. The defendant’s attempt was not a mere amendment; it was a fundamental change of her status, which would require amendment of the written statement. However, amendment was barred by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC because the trial had already commenced.

C. Filing an additional written statement cannot be used as a ruse to circumvent the bar on amendment after trial (Para 12).
The High Court itself observed that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC would bar amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial. The defendant, knowing this, styled her application as one under Order 8 Rule 9 for “additional” written statement. The Supreme Court held that this was a clear abuse of process. If a party cannot amend its pleading, it cannot achieve the same result by filing an “additional” written statement.

D. The High Court erred in invoking Article 227 when the Trial Court’s order was fully justified (Paras 13-14).
The Trial Court had given cogent reasons: the defendant had already taken a stand, issues were framed, trial had commenced, and allowing the change would prejudice the plaintiff. The High Court, in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, should not have interfered with a sound and reasoned order of the Trial Court. The impugned order was accordingly set aside.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• First, a party cannot file an “additional written statement” under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to introduce a case that is fundamentally inconsistent with the original written statement. An additional written statement is meant to supply omitted facts that are consistent with the original defence, not to change the defence entirely.

• Second, the prohibition on amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial (proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC) cannot be circumvented by seeking leave to file an “additional written statement” under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. The court will look at the substance, not the label.

• Third, Order 6 Rule 7 CPC mandates that pleadings must not be inconsistent. A defendant who has claimed a particular status (e.g., co‑sharer) cannot subsequently claim a contradictory status (e.g., tenant) without first amending the written statement, and such amendment is barred after trial has commenced unless exceptional circumstances are shown (which were absent here).

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis of Concepts

The Court first examined the timeline: written statement filed on 08.12.2022; issues framed on 17.05.2023; the plaintiff’s witness was cross‑examined on three dates spread over several months. The application for additional written statement was filed after the trial had commenced.

The Court then analysed the content of the original written statement (co‑sharer) and the proposed additional written statement (tenant). It noted that the two are mutually exclusive. A tenant has a right to remain in possession unless evicted under rent control laws; a co‑sharer has a right to joint possession. The change would fundamentally alter the nature of the defence and the issues to be tried.

The Court referred to Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, which expressly prohibits a party from raising inconsistent allegations in pleadings. It observed that the defendant’s attempt was precisely what Rule 7 forbids.

The Court then considered the applicability of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. It noted that the provision allows filing of an additional written statement only when the Court requires it or in defence to a set‑off or counterclaim. The defendant could not point to any set‑off or counterclaim. The Court also noted that the Trial Court had not required any additional pleading. Therefore, the defendant had no right under Order 8 Rule 9 to file an additional written statement.

The Court further observed that the High Court had acknowledged that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC barred amendment after trial. Yet, the High Court permitted the additional written statement, which had the same effect as an amendment. This was inconsistent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was legally unsustainable.

Finally, the Court noted that the defendant had not explained why the fact of tenancy, if true, was not mentioned in the original written statement. The explanation of “inadvertence” was rejected because the change was not a minor omission but a complete reversal of the defence.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment correctly upholds the principles of procedural law that prevent a party from changing its stand mid‑way to prejudice the opponent. It reaffirms that Order 8 Rule 9 is not a backdoor for bypassing the prohibition on amendment after trial. The distinction between “additional” pleading (supplementing the original) and “amended” pleading (changing the original) is crucial and well‑articulated. The judgment also serves as a reminder to High Courts that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should not be used to interfere with reasoned discretionary orders of trial courts unless there is grave error or perversity.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly discuss the situation where the original written statement might have been filed under a mistaken belief and the additional written statement is intended to correct a genuine error. However, in this case, the defendant had already taken a specific stand (co‑sharer) and issues were framed based on that. Allowing a change at that stage would cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff, who had already led evidence. The Court’s approach is therefore correct.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in civil suits where a party attempts to file an additional written statement after issues have been framed or trial has commenced, to introduce a defence inconsistent with the original. Trial courts will now be more vigilant in rejecting such applications as abuse of process. It also serves as a warning to litigants that they must put forth their entire defence in the first written statement; they cannot reserve a contradictory defence for later.

9. Final Outcome

• The appeal was allowed.

• The impugned order of the Calcutta High Court dated 03.09.2025 in C.O. No. 3172 of 2025 was set aside.

• Order No. 18 dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Xth Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1527 of 2022 – rejecting the defendant’s application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC – was restored.

• Parties to bear their own costs.

10. Practical Application

First, a plaintiff faced with a defendant’s application to file an additional written statement after trial has commenced can cite this judgment to argue that if the additional pleading seeks to introduce a defence inconsistent with the original written statement, it is not permissible under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. The court should reject such application as an abuse of process.

Second, a defendant who genuinely needs to correct an inadvertent omission in the written statement should file an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC before the trial commences. After trial has commenced, amendment is barred by the proviso unless the party can show that despite due diligence, the matter could not be raised earlier. Filing an “additional written statement” under Order 8 Rule 9 is not a substitute for amendment.

Third, a High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should not interfere with a trial court’s discretionary order rejecting such an application unless the trial court’s order is perverse or patently illegal. This judgment reminds High Courts that the supervisory power is not appellate.

11. Court Lines

Line 1 (Inconsistent pleadings not allowed – Para 11):
“Earlier, she had stated that she was a bonafide co‑sharer of the suit premises but by way of the additional written statement, she wanted to do a complete volte‑face by claiming to be the tenant of the plaintiff. This retraction of her earlier stand and introduction of a totally inconsistent and contradictory stand by the defendant, in the guise of filing an additional written statement, was contrary to the mandate of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC.”

Line 2 (Abuse of process to bypass amendment bar – Para 12):
“Further, the very filing of such an application by the defendant, having failed to seek amendment of her written statement at the appropriate stage and after the trial in the suit had already commenced, was clearly an abuse of process. As noted by the learned Judge himself, this ploy was adopted to get over the hurdle raised by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which would not have permitted the defendant to seek amendment of her written statement.”

Line 3 (High Court’s error – Para 13):
“We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the Trial Court was fully justified on facts and in law and the learned Judge of the High Court was not correct in interfering with the said reasoned order by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.”

Line 4 (Scope of Order 8 Rule 9 – Para 11):
“Order 8 Rule 9 CPC states that no pleading shall ordinarily be presented after the filing of a written statement unless it is by way of defence to a set‑off or counter claim and allows the filing of an additional written statement only when the Court requires it.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For the plaintiff (opposing an additional written statement):

• Immediately upon receiving the application, file an objection highlighting the inconsistency between the original written statement and the proposed additional pleading. Quote Order 6 Rule 7 CPC.

• Point out that the trial has already commenced (examination of plaintiff’s witness has begun). Argue that the application is a ruse to bypass the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

• Cite this judgment to argue that an “additional written statement” cannot be used to introduce a fundamentally different defence. The court should reject the application summarily.

For the defendant (seeking to file an additional written statement):

• Before filing, ensure that the proposed additional pleading is consistent with the original written statement. If it is a true omission (e.g., a fact that was inadvertently left out but does not contradict the original defence), you may be permitted.

• However, if you need to change your defence entirely, you must seek amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC before the trial commences. After trial commences, amendment is barred unless you can show exceptional circumstances (e.g., newly discovered evidence). Do not attempt to use Order 8 Rule 9 as a substitute – this judgment makes it clear that it will be struck down.

• If the trial court rejects your application, do not rush to the High Court under Article 227; this judgment holds that High Courts will not interfere with such reasoned orders.

For a lawyer drafting a written statement:

• Ensure that you set out the complete defence at the outset. Do not assume you can supplement or change it later. If you are unsure about the legal status (e.g., whether your client is a co‑sharer or a tenant), obtain proper instructions before filing.

• If you anticipate that your client’s status might be disputed, plead in the alternative (e.g., “in the alternative, even if the defendant is not a co‑sharer, she is a tenant”). That is permissible under Order 6 Rule 2 (pleading in alternative). But do not plead one positive fact and later change it to a contradictory positive fact.