Judicial discretion under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC to allow additional pleadings must be exercised judiciously and cannot disregard the closure of evidence or claim of prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order of the learned Family Court, Kattappana, through which it allowed I.A.No.8/2025 in O.P.(RM) 84/2023.

2. The Original Petition above mentioned was filed by the petitioner seeking return of her patrimony from the respondents and the latter filed a written statement.

3. The Original Petition, admittedly, then went to trial, with both sides adducing evidence, which was thereafter closed. However, subsequent to the closure of evidence, the respondents filed I.A.No.8/2025, seeking leave of the Court – under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - to file an ‘additional written statement’; saying that there were inadvertent omissions in the original written statement in denying some of the assertions made by the petitioner in the Original Petition.

4. This application was opposed vehemently by the petitioner, contending that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC cannot apply, since the evidence in the matter has been closed, after the examination of witnesses; and hence that any further latitude would prejudice her irreparably, the attempt of the respondents being to take away benefits that has accrued to her from the concessions, undertakings and admissions contained in the deposition of the witnesses.

5. The learned Family Court, however, allowed the interim application, finding that the petitioner would be put to no prejudice because, she can file a ‘rejoinder’ and thus rebut all the assertions to be made by the respondents in their ‘additional written statement’.

6. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 on various grounds.

7. Sri.Liji J Vadakkedom – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the learned Family Court has misdirected itself in fathoming the ambit of Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC, particularly when the trial in this case is admittedly over. He argued that, when his client has already obtained benefit of certain uncontroverted facts, as also admissions/concessions available in the oral evidence of RW1, the attempt by the respondents to cover up and fill up such, through an ‘additional written statement’, is malafide, impermissible and untenable. He argued that, if an additional written statement is to be allowed in such manner, it would be without purpose, since the evidence in the matter has already been closed.

8. However, in response, Sri.Jomy K. Jose – learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the learned Family Court has acted well within the parameters of Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC, by granting leave to his clients to file an additional written statement. He expressly conceded that there were certain omissions – which he described to be ‘clerical’ in nature – in the original written statement filed by his clients; and that, on account of such, there came to be admissions, which were not intended. He explained that, it is for such reason that his clients moved I.A.No.8/2025 seeking leave to file an additional written statement; and that its allowing by the learned Family Court causes no prejudice to the petitioner because she can always file a ‘rejoinder’, as has been permitted in the order impugned. He, however, had no answer to our specific question as to what will be now done by the learned Family Court once the additional written statement or the ‘rejoinder’ is on record, the trial being concededly over. He nevertheless said that his client proposes, after the additional written statement is filed, to reopen evidence; and asserted that this would have to be allowed in law – but admitting that no step for such has been initiated. He concluded, predicating that the learned Family Court has the statutory discretion, und