The Supreme Court has held that a defendant cannot be permitted to withdraw an earlier stand taken in a written statement and replace it with a completely contradictory defence through the filing of an additional written statement. The Court observed that such a course is not contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure and would amount to an improper attempt to alter the fundamental nature of the defence already presented before the court.
The case arose from a civil dispute in which the defendant sought permission to file an additional written statement after already submitting an original written statement. In the original pleading, the defendant had taken a particular position regarding her status and her right to remain in possession of the property that was the subject matter of the suit. At a later stage of the proceedings, she sought to introduce a new defence that was entirely inconsistent with the stand originally taken.
The Supreme Court examined the provisions governing additional written statements under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court noted that the provision generally prohibits further pleadings after the filing of a written statement unless the court grants permission. It observed that the purpose of permitting additional pleadings is limited and cannot be stretched to allow a litigant to abandon an earlier case and substitute it with a new and contradictory one.
According to the Court, the defendant’s application was not intended to clarify an omission, explain facts already pleaded, or supplement the existing defence. Instead, it represented a complete reversal of the position taken earlier. The Court found that the defendant sought to move from one basis of claiming possession to another entirely different basis, thereby retracting the earlier stand and introducing a fresh defence inconsistent with the original pleading.
The judgment emphasized that pleadings play a crucial role in civil litigation because they identify the issues in dispute and define the scope of the case. Allowing a party to fundamentally change its position after filing a written statement would undermine the purpose of pleadings and adversely affect the fairness and orderly conduct of the proceedings. The Court observed that litigants cannot be allowed to shift their stand in a manner that creates uncertainty and prejudice for the opposing party.
The Court further stated that an additional written statement cannot be used as a mechanism to circumvent the restrictions imposed on amendments to pleadings. If parties were permitted to introduce contradictory defences through additional written statements, the statutory safeguards governing amendments would become ineffective. The Court held that procedural requirements cannot be bypassed by merely changing the label attached to an application.
Referring to established principles governing civil procedure, the Court observed that inconsistent and mutually destructive pleas that negate earlier admissions should not ordinarily be permitted. The law does not allow a litigant to retract admissions already made and replace them with a completely different case under the guise of filing a subsequent pleading. Such an approach would be contrary to the procedural framework designed to ensure fairness and certainty in litigation.
The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had rejected the defendant’s request to file the additional written statement. However, the High Court later allowed the application subject to payment of costs. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in permitting the filing despite the substantial inconsistency between the original and proposed defences. According to the Court, the nature of the proposed pleading went beyond what could legitimately be introduced through an additional written statement.
After examining the facts and the legal provisions, the Supreme Court concluded that the defendant’s attempt amounted to a complete withdrawal of the earlier stand and the introduction of a contradictory case. The Court held that such a retraction was impermissible and contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It observed that the defendant was effectively attempting to rewrite the defence already placed on record rather than supplement it.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the decision of the trial court rejecting the application for filing the additional written statement. The Court reaffirmed that additional written statements are not intended to provide parties with an opportunity to abandon their original pleadings, retract admissions, or introduce a completely inconsistent defence. The ruling underscores that subsequent pleadings may be permitted only within the limited scope contemplated by procedural law and cannot be used to alter the essential character of a party’s case after the proceedings have progressed.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.