Inconsistent additional pleadings are not permitted under the Civil Procedure Code, and courts have the authority to eschew such inconsistent portions from the pleadings.

IMMANENI PANDURANGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE 2nd plaintiff is the petitioner. He filed the revision challenging the order in I. A. No. 587 of 1990 alleging that the learned District munsif has permitted the defendants to take inconsistent pleas in the additional written statement and such inconsistent pleas should be eschewed from consideration.

( 2 ) THE petitioner s counsel submitted that in the written statement as originally filed, the plea taken was that the suit land is a Gramnatham-Poramboke and that the defendants are in possession of that Gramnatham poramboke. But in the additional written statement, the defendants tried to introduce an additional plea that they have acquired a right to the suit property by virtue of an oral sale.

( 3 ) THE learned District Munsif dismissed that petition holding that the order of the Court affording an opportunity to the defendants for filing additional written statement, has become final and that it is not open to the plaintiffs to pray for rejection of any portion of the additional written statement.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in G. Bullemmayi vs. G. Venkata Reddy in which it is held that additional written statement raising pleas completely altering the pleas already taken, cannot be permitted. The learned Judge observed that if the intention of filing the additional written statement was to completely alter the plea, which has already been taken in the original written statement and no. t to add or amend the same without affecting the fabric of the original defence, the trial Court should refuse leave to the defendant to file an additional written statement. The same view was taken in an earlier decision of this Court in S. K. D. Laboratories vs. Bank of India, holding that a combined reading of Order 8 Rule 9 and also Order 6 Rule 7 C. P. C. makes it clear that additional pleadings, which are inconsistent with the previous pleadings, cannot be permitted. It is further clarified that in view of the mandatory language used in Order 6 Rule 7 C. P. C. prohibiting departure in pleadings, the additional written statement which contains pleas inconsistent with the grounds in the written statement, cannot be permitted to go on record under order 8 Rule 9 C. P. C. Even the Delhi High Court held in Jaimal Singh vs. Smt. Chanan Devi that a defendant cannot ignore his earlier written statement while filing written statement for the amended plaint and that he has a right to have his say only with respect to the matter introduced by way of amendment of the plaint and no more. The Delhi High Court further held that when the defendant has filed a written statement changing the pleas in the original statement, the action of the defendant was contrary to Order 6 Rule 7 C. P. C. and that the plaintiff has got a right to move an application under Order 6 Rule 16 C. P. C. for striking off the said pleadings.

( 5 ) IN the light of the above decisions, I hold that the view taken by the learned District Munsif that because the defendant has filed the amended written statement, it is not open to the plaintiff to question the same, is not correct and is liable to be set aside. The C. R. P. is, therefore, allowed, the order in LA. No. 587 of 1990 is set aside and the learned district Munsif is directed to eschew from the additional written statement filed by the defendants, such of the portions which are found to be inconsistent with the pleas taken in the original written statement. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document