Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Sumedha Halder, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Balmiki Prasad, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tapan Bijoy Deb Choudhury, AOR Mr. Tapan Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Tarun Choudhury, Adv.

Key Points: - The very filing of an application under Order 8 Rule 9 to permit an additional written statement at an advanced stage, after trial has commenced, was deemed an abuse of process. (!) - The defendant originally claimed to be a bona-fide co-sharer but, via the additional written statement, sought to claim to be a tenant, introducing a completely inconsistent and contradictory stand contrary to Order 6 Rule 7 CPC. (!) - Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC bars amendment after commencement of trial; attempting to bypass it via an additional written statement is improper. (!) (!) - The Trial Court’s view that the defendant could not retract her earlier stand and that the amendment was impermissible was fully justified on facts and in law; the High Court erred in allowing the additional written statement. (!) - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the Trial Court’s order rejecting the application to file an additional written statement, with parties bearing their own costs. (!) (!)

How to determine whether a defendant can file an additional written statement to change her stand after trial has commenced under Order 8 Rule 9 and Order 6 Rule 7 CPC?

What is the effect of filing an additional written statement at an advanced stage to adopt a contradictory stand, and whether such filing constitutes abuse of process or permissible amendment?

What is the proper judicial approach to maintain fidelity to pleadings and avoid bypassing the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC?