The Supreme Court of India ruled on June 1, 2026, that a defendant cannot use an additional written statement to retract original pleadings or introduce a contradictory defence after a civil trial has commenced. In the case of Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.

Vinod Chandran set aside a Calcutta High Court order that had permitted such a filing. The apex court explicitly stated that a defendant cannot be allowed to radically alter her stand at an advanced stage of litigation, especially when the new plea is inconsistent with the initial defence.

The legal dispute began with Title Suit No. 1527 of 2022 before the City Civil Court at Calcutta. Plaintiff Mondira Ghosh sought a declaration that Chaitali Ghosh was in unlawful possession of the suit property and requested her eviction along with damages.

In her original written statement filed in December 2022, Chaitali Ghosh claimed to be a bona fide co-sharer of the premises. However, as the trial progressed, she attempted to shift her position entirely, asserting instead that she was a tenant under the plaintiff.

By May 2023, issues were framed and the trial had officially commenced. The plaintiff’s witness had already undergone extensive cross-examination on three separate dates before the defendant filed an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This application sought permission to file an additional written statement and a counterclaim, effectively abandoning the original co-sharer claim for a tenancy defence.

Supreme Court reinforces limits on additional written statements

The Supreme Court described the defendant’s attempt to pivot her defence as a “complete volte-face” and a “clear abuse of process.” Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that the application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC was a tactical move to bypass the strict proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. This proviso generally

com/jk-high-court-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-property-triable-issue-ruling/”>property status is a triable issue, but the Court emphasized that once a trial has substantially progressed, allowing such shifts would make procedural restrictions meaningless. The Court held that the requested change was not about inadvertently omitted facts but a radical shift in legal strategy.

Furthermore, the Court invoked Order VI Rule 7 of the CPC, which prohibits raising allegations of fact inconsistent with previous pleadings except through a formal amendment. By restoring the Trial Court’s original rejection of the application, the Supreme Court signaled that procedural flexibility does not extend to bad-faith attempts to restart a trial from a new angle.

Chronology of the Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh litigation

Date / Period	Event / Legal Milestone	Outcome / Status
December 2022	Defendant Chaitali Ghosh files original written statement	Claimed to be a “bona fide co-sharer”
May 2023	Issues framed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta	Trial officially commenced
Post-Trial Start	Application filed under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC	Sought to change defence to “tenancy”
June 1, 2026	Supreme Court delivery of final judgment	Rejection of additional statement upheld

Reversal of the Calcutta High Court more lenient view

The Calcutta High Court had previously taken a different approach, partly allowing the defendant’s challenge and permitting the additional written statement on the condition that she pay ₹15,000 in costs. The High Court had reasoned that the “new facts” were relevant and the delay had been satisfactorily explained.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the High Court failed to address how the new plea directly contradicted the original one.

The apex court found that this transition from claiming ownership to claiming tenancy was an attempt to overcome the defendant’s failure to seek a timely amendment. Such a shift often occurs in litigation where Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Supreme Court rule regarding retracted pleadings?

The Court ruled that a defendant cannot use an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to retract original pleadings or introduce a contradictory case once the trial has commenced, as this would be a “volte-face” that abuses the legal process.

How does Order VIII Rule 9 interact with the amendment of pleadings?

The Supreme Court clarified that Order VIII Rule 9 cannot be used as a backdoor to bypass the restrictive proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. This proviso prevents parties from amending their case after the trial starts unless they show due diligence.

What specific contradiction led to the rejection in the Ghosh case?

The defendant, Chaitali Ghosh, originally claimed to be a “co-sharer” (owner) of the property. In her additional written statement, she attempted to change her status to that of a “tenant,” which the Court found to be an entirely inconsistent and contradictory stand.