Civi: Radical Changes in pleadings not allowed through amendment at advanced stage.

 Civil proceedings pleadings cannot be allowed to be radically altered at advanced stage by way of amendment, introducing new facts inconsistent with the original pleading in contravention of the bar contained in Order 6 Rule 7

Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.8, R.9, O.6, R.7, O. 6 R.17 proviso - Additional written statement

The case of the defendant: she had claimed in her written statement that she was bonafide co-sharer of suit premises - Whereas by way of additional written statement, she claimed that she was tenant under plaintiff - This was not case of fact not having been stated in written statement and that void being sought to be filled up by way of additional written statement -  defendant sought to completely change her original  stand with regard to her status and claim for being in possession - she retracted from  her earlier stand of being co-sharer and introduced a totally inconsistent and contradictory stand stating that she was a tenant , in guise of filing additional written statement, 

Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court order that allowed the defendant to file an additional written statement at an advanced stage of a civil suit, holding that a party cannot use such a pleading to introduce a completely contradictory case under the garb of an additional written statement after the commencement of trial.

The trial court had rejected the application, holding that the defendant could not retract from her earlier plea and substitute it with an altogether inconsistent case. The court relied on Order VI Rule 7 CPC, which prohibits a party from raising allegations inconsistent with previous pleadings except through amendment.

A defendant cannot be permitted to radically alter her stand in a civil suit through an additional written statement after the trial has commenced and is at advance stage,  particularly when the new plea is inconsistent with the original defence.

The defendant wanted to completely change her stand with regard to her status and claim for being in possession. 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,"

Defendent sought to overcome the embargo contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which restricts amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated September 3, 2025, and restored the trial court's order rejecting the defendant's application.

Case: Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh

Division: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Date:01.06.2026