Subsequent pleadings under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC cannot introduce new causes of action and must relate to existing issues, with the court retaining discretion to allow or deny such applications based on timeliness and justification.

ORDER :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.53 of 2017 on the file of the X Additional District Judge at Anakapalli, filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking recovery of amount of Rs.64,54,933/- together with interest @ 24% per annum, based on two promissory notes, dated 08.12.2014.

3. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement on 14.06.2018, raising various pleas and denying the contents of the plaint. While the suit was at the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 804 of 2024, seeking permission to file an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'). The respondent filed objections/counter affidavit, opposing the prayer. The learned X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli, rejected I.A. No. 804 of 2024 by order dated 12.12.2024.

4. Challenging the order dated 12.12.2024, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The additional written statement was necessary to be filed. The petitioner wanted to explain certain facts of the written statement. He submits that a plea was being raised that the plaintiff forcefully obtained signatures on the blank promissory notes and non judicial stamps, under coercion and fraud and fabricated the same. He placed reliance in Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, (2018) 11 SCC 722] to contend that the Court has power to take the additional written statement at any time.

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

7. Order 8 Rule 9 CPC reads as under :

“9.Subsequent pleadings :- No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set off or counterclaim be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same.”

8. A perusal of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC makes it evident that no pleadings subsequent to the written statement of the defendant, other than by way of defense to a set-off or counterclaim, shall be presented except with the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court may deem necessary. However, the Court may, at any time, require a written statement or an additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time not exceeding 30 days for its submission.

9. In Noorul Hassan V. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh and Others, [(2024) 9 SCC 353], the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the replication, though not a pleading as per Rule 1 of Order 6 CPC, is permissible with the leave of the Court under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, which gives a right to file a reply in defence to set-off or counterclaim set up in the written statement. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that, however, such leave is not to be granted mechanically. The Court before granting leave must consider the averments made in the plaint/election petition, the written statement and the replication. Upon consideration thereof, if the court feels that to ensure a fair and effective trial of the issues already raised, the plaintiff-election petitioner must get opportunity to explain/clarify the facts newly raised or pleaded in the written statement, it may grant leave upon such terms as it deems fit. The Hon’ble Apex Court clarified that while considering grant of leave, the court must bear in mind that, (a) a replication is not needed to merely traverse facts pleaded in the written statement; (b) a replication is not a substitute for an amendment; and (c) a new cause of action or plea inconsistent with the plea taken in original petition/plaint is not to be permitted