An application for leave to file an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC, if filed after the commencement of trial without sufficient cause, is liable to be dismissed as belated.

Headnote:The case involves a challenge to a Trial Court order dismissing an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by which the defendants sought leave to file an additional written statement. The Trial Court held that the application was filed at the stage of evidence, which the High Court reviewed given the procedural rules regarding the timing of such pleadings. The primary issue concerns whether a defendant may file an additional written statement after the commencement of the trial. The court reasoned that since the trial had already commenced and the plaintiff had completed their chief examination, the application was filed belatedly, justifying the Trial Court’s dismissal. The ratio is that seeking leave to file additional pleadings after trial initiation without sufficient justification is impermissible. The final outcome is that the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background concerning the rejection of an application for additional written statement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. the court's rationale that belated applications for additional pleadings at the trial stage are properly dismissed. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.5 of 2025 in O.S.No.119 of 2019, dismissing the petitioner’s application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C., seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement.

2. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. During the trial stage and

the petitioners had filed the application in I.A.No. 5 of 2025 in O.S. No. 119 of 2019, seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement. The same has been dismissed by the trial Court under the impugned order on the ground that the same has been filed belatedly, that is, at the evidence stage.

3. Admittedly, the application seeking leave of the Court to file additional written statement was filed by the petitioner only after the commencement of the trial. The plaintiff had completed his chief examination and only thereafter, I.A. No. 5 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner, seeking leave of the Trial Court to file additional written statement.

4. Having framed issues and the trial having commenced, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petitioners’ application seeking leave of the trial Court to file additional written statement on the ground that the said application has been filed belatedly.

5. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs.

08-06-2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No ab

To
1. The District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASAbdul Quddhose, JV. Selvam – AppellantVersusNagaraji – RespondentCRP No. 3053 of 2026

An application for leave to file an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC, if filed after the commencement of trial without sufficient cause, is liable to be dismissed as belated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhose, J
V. Selvam – Appellant
Versus
Nagaraji – Respondent
CRP No. 3053 of 2026