Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from a Leave and Licence Agreement dated 1 August 2018, where the respondent-plaintiff was granted licence to occupy premises by the petitioner-defendants. Upon termination of the licence term, possession was delivered on 7 November 2020, but a dispute arose regarding refund of the security deposit of Rs.49,93,920/-. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of this amount with interest. The defendants filed a written statement on 4 August 2022, admitting liability to refund the security deposit after deducting outstanding charges of Rs.5,42,225/-. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion for summary judgment based on these admissions. In response, the defendants sought leave to file an additional written statement on 24 March 2023, claiming Rs.96,82,345/- for repairs and loss of rental income, which constituted a counter-claim not mentioned in the original written statement. The trial court rejected this application, finding it was an attempt to withdraw admissions and delay the suit. The defendants then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging this order. The core legal issue was whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC in rejecting the application for additional written statement. The defendants argued that Order VIII Rule 9 expressly permits additional pleadings with court leave, and that procedure should serve justice by determining real controversies and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. They relied on Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar to argue that admissions could be explained if inadvertently made. The plaintiff contended that the additional written statement was a belated counter-claim aimed at wiping out clear admissions and delaying disposal, citing Bollepanda P. Poonacha v. K.M. Madapa. The High Court analyzed Order VIII Rule 9, noting it allows additional pleadings only with court leave and that this discretionary power must be exercised judiciously. The court distinguished between amendment under Order VI Rule 17 (which relates back) and additional pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 (which stand separately), referencing P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha. The court found that the defendants sought to introduce a substantial counter-claim at a belated stage, after the plaintiff had moved for summary judgment based on admissions. This was an attempt to withdraw clear admissions and take a diametrically opposite stand, which was impermissible. The trial court had properly exercised its discretion in rejecting the application to prevent abuse of process and delay. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Written Statement - Order VIII Rule 9 CPC - Discretionary Power - Defendants sought leave to file additional written statement containing counter-claim after plaintiff filed motion for summary judgment based on admissions in original written statement - Trial court rejected application finding it was attempt to wriggle out of admissions - High Court upheld trial court's exercise of discretion, noting additional pleadings were sought at belated stage to dilute clear admissions - Held that discretion under Order VIII Rule 9 must be exercised judiciously and belated counter-claims should not be entertained as matter of course (Paras 5-13). B) Civil Procedure - Admissions in Pleadings - Withdrawal of Admissions - Defendants sought to file additional written statement to claim damages for repairs and loss of rental income, contrary to admissions in original written statement regarding security deposit refund - Trial court found this impermissible withdrawal of admissions - High Court affirmed that defendants cannot be permitted to take diametrically opposite stand through additional pleadings to withdraw clear admissions made in original written statement (Paras 3.6-3.7). C) Civil Procedure - Distinction Between Amendment and Additional Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 vs Order VIII Rule 9 CPC - Supreme Court precedent cited distinguishing amendment of pleadings (which relates back) from additional written statements (which stand on different footing) - High Court noted that at belated stage, leave for filing additional written statement is usually not granted, especially when sought to introduce new counter-claim (Paras 11-12).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendants' application for leave to file additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 6 May 2024 which rejected the defendants' Notice of Motion for leave to file additional written statement
