Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Stage for Argument and Written Statements - The stage in a trial allows parties, including defendants acting as Advocates, to produce written statements and additional evidence, even after initial filings, provided the court permits. Courts have recognized that late production of documents or statements can be justified if they were not previously within the party’s knowledge or could not be produced earlier, often under rules like Rule 17A or Rule 1A of Order VIII. ["Ramaniyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd. vs Gunda Ramani - Madras"] ["M/S JADOB ELECTRIC CO vs DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD AND ANR - Calcutta"] ["NANUBHAI BHANABHAI BAMBHANIYA vs BHIMABHAI BHANABHAI BAMBHANIYA - Gujarat"]
Change of Advocate and Power of Attorney - When a new advocate takes over, the defendant or party can be permitted to produce additional written statements or evidence, especially if the previous advocate failed to inform them of procedural requirements. Courts have approved the production of additional evidence at a belated stage, considering justice and fairness. The legal representative’s role includes filing additional written statements if permitted by the court, as per rules governing legal representatives and Power of Attorney holders. ["Ramaniyam Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs Gunda Ramani - Madras"] ["TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED V/s GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS LTD - Gujarat"] ["AAFTAB AHMAD VS MOHD SOYEB - Allahabad"]
Additional Written Statements and Evidence - Courts generally allow parties to file additional written statements or produce documents at a later stage, provided they do so with the court’s leave and within the parameters of procedural rules. For instance, Rule 1A of Order VIII mandates that documents relied upon in defense must be listed and produced when the written statement is filed, but courts may permit belated production if justified. ["In The Goods Of Kanhaiyalal Sikhwal vs In The Goods Of Savitri Devi Sikhwal (Dec) - Calcutta"] ["Mohammed Abdul Wahid VS Nilofer - Supreme Court"] ["Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin VS Dilipbhai Bhaktiprasad Doshi - Gujarat"]
Production of Documents After Closure of Evidence - Courts have held that documents not produced along with the initial written statement can be allowed later if the party demonstrates that the documents were not available earlier or could not be produced due to valid reasons. This is subject to the court’s discretion and the principles of justice. ["SURJIT KAUR vs JASBIR KAUR & ORS - Punjab and Haryana"] ["SURJIT KAUR vs JASBIR KAUR & ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]
Court’s Discretion and Justice - The overarching principle is that courts aim to do justice, and thus, they may permit the production of additional evidence or written statements at stages beyond the initial filing, especially if it does not prejudice the opposite party and is in the interest of fairness. The courts also emphasize that procedural rules are meant to facilitate justice rather than hinder it. ["Thulasiammal and Others VS Joint Secretary To The Government of India - Madras"] ["M/S JADOB ELECTRIC CO vs DURGAPUR PROJECTS LTD AND ANR - Calcutta"]
Analysis and Conclusion:The legal framework and judicial precedents establish that additional written statements and evidence can be produced in court even after the initial stages, including during arguments, provided the party shows valid reasons such as lack of prior knowledge or procedural delays. The change of advocate or defendant acting under Power of Attorney does not bar the production of such documents if permitted by the court. Courts prioritize fairness, and rules like Order VIII and Rule 17A facilitate the belated admission of evidence, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not override substantive justice. Therefore, an advocate or defendant who takes over or seeks to produce additional written statements at the argument stage can do so with court approval, aligning with the principles of justice and procedural flexibility.
In civil litigation, moments of transition—like changing advocates—can raise tricky procedural questions. Imagine this scenario: the case has reached the arguments stage, and the defendant appoints a new advocate with power of attorney, replacing the previous counsel. Can the defendant now produce an additional written statement in court?
This question touches on core principles under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly regarding the binding nature of pleadings, advocate substitution, and the scope for new submissions. While advocate changes are common, they do not automatically open the door to fresh pleadings, especially at advanced stages. This post breaks down the legal framework, key case laws, and practical considerations to guide you.
Disclaimer: This is general information based on judicial precedents and statutes. It is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Under CPC Order XXII Rule 4(2), substitution often arises upon a party's death, where legal representatives step into their shoes. However, even in non-death scenarios like advocate changes, pleadings remain binding. Legal representatives (or parties via new counsel) are generally bound by prior pleadings, admissions, and positions taken. Saraswatha W/o Sampatrao Bhoyar vs Late Ravindra S/o Sadashiv Khodke - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7978
The rule states that legal representatives may file an additional written statement or statement of objections raising all pleas which the deceased-defendant... but this is not unrestricted. Mere substitution does not permit contradictions without court permission. Saraswatha W/o Sampatrao Bhoyar vs Late Ravindra S/o Sadashiv Khodke - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7978
Courts emphasize that new advocates or representatives inherit the deceased or prior party's stand. Deviations require formal steps like amendment applications under Order VI Rule 17. Without this, additional statements contradicting originals are impermissible. Anantram Bhotra vs Pratima Bhotra - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 819
As held: Legal representatives step into the shoes of the deceased and are bound by the pleadings, admissions, and stand taken by the deceased in the original pleadings. Anantram Bhotra vs Pratima Bhotra - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 819
At the arguments stage—post-evidence, pre-judgment—courts are cautious. Filing additional written statements here is typically barred unless exceptional circumstances exist, like new facts post-trial or plaintiff amendments.
Post-substitution, legal representatives cannot file new written statements contradicting the original without amendment applications. The trial court errs if it accepts such without procedure. Anantram Bhotra vs Pratima Bhotra - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 819
In one case: The trial court erred in accepting an additional written statement that contradicted the deceased defendant’s original pleadings without a proper application for amendment or joinder. Anantram Bhotra vs Pratima Bhotra - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 819
Similarly: There is no provision in the CPC allowing the substitution of one written statement with another. Filing a second or contradictory written statement without proper procedural steps is impermissible. Sameermal Runwal VS Prakashchandra Kothari - 2010 0 Supreme(MP) 383
A new advocate taking power does not reset pleadings. They must work within existing frameworks. Late applications (e.g., at judgment posting) to adduce prior statements or evidence are often rejected if arguments are complete. M/S ADRASH PALACE PVT. LTD. SUNDARGARH vs PRIAMBADA DWIBEDI - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 5953
The background of the case is that, the parties have led their evidence and argument was completed. But when the matter was posted for judgment, at that stage a petition was filed... the trial court had stated that the application was filed at the stage of arguments. INDORI00021563
Courts permit them under specific conditions:
If plaintiffs are permitted to carry out amendment in the plaint then defendant has every right to file additional written statement... which are not inconsistent to the pleas already taken. Baldev Singh VS Sarabjit Kaur - 2010 Supreme(P&H) 2919
Non-Deviation from Prior Stand: If clarifying based on trial evidence or records, without contradiction. Subbaiah VS Velu - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 3528
A reading of the written statement and additional written statement would show that the 2nd defendant is not deviating from his earlier stand... delay shall not defeat his case. Subbaiah VS Velu - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 3528
Legal Representatives' Independent Rights: Must disclose if claiming separate defenses; adopting predecessor's limits new actions. Saraswatha W/o Sampatrao Bhoyar vs Late Ravindra S/o Sadashiv Khodke - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7978
Formal Applications Required: Always seek leave via Order VIII Rule 9 or Order VI Rule 17. No automatic right, especially late-stage. S. Malla Reddy VS Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society - 2013 Supreme(SC) 390
Other insights:- Subsequent purchasers may file independent WS if distinct. Roopa D/O. Shivananda Reddy VS Shivananda Reddy S/O Late K T Nagappa Reddy - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 2115- Resiling from admissions via fresh WS after years is abuse of process. S. Malla Reddy VS Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society - 2013 Supreme(SC) 390
Advocate substitution—even at arguments—does not grant carte blanche for additional written statements. Bound by prior pleadings, defendants must seek formal court permission to avoid rejection and appeals. This upholds trial fairness and procedural integrity.
Key Takeaways:- Original pleadings bind new advocates/legal reps. Anantram Bhotra vs Pratima Bhotra - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 819- Contradictory additional WS need amendment applications. Sameermal Runwal VS Prakashchandra Kothari - 2010 0 Supreme(MP) 383- Possible post-plaint changes or clarifications, if consistent. Baldev Singh VS Sarabjit Kaur - 2010 Supreme(P&H) 2919- Late-stage filings risky; act early.
Stay procedural-compliant to safeguard your case. For tailored advice, engage a civil litigator familiar with local court practices.
Sources:- Anantram Bhotra vs Pratima Bhotra - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 819Sameermal Runwal VS Prakashchandra Kothari - 2010 0 Supreme(MP) 383Saraswatha W/o Sampatrao Bhoyar vs Late Ravindra S/o Sadashiv Khodke - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 7978Baldev Singh VS Sarabjit Kaur - 2010 Supreme(P&H) 2919Subbaiah VS Velu - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 3528M/S ADRASH PALACE PVT. LTD. SUNDARGARH vs PRIAMBADA DWIBEDI - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 5953S. Malla Reddy VS Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society - 2013 Supreme(SC) 390Roopa D/O. Shivananda Reddy VS Shivananda Reddy S/O Late K T Nagappa Reddy - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 2115
#CivilLaw #CPCIndia #LegalPleadings
According to the learned Councel for the petitioners, this change is not of mere form, but is of substance and in fact he relied on an observation of the Supreme Court reported inA.K. Royv. Union of India to buttress this argument. ... ... 6.The next argument of the learned Councel for the Petitioners is that Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, isultra viresthe provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution. ... This court inState of Bombayv. Kathi Kalu Oghad, 1962- observed at p. 37 ....
As such, the relevancy of the previous written statement filed by the said defendants in another suit is not made out by the petitioners. ... A perusal of Para 4 of the written statementdated 26.10.2018 (Annexure P2) filed by the petitioners in the present suit shows that mention is made therein of the written statement filed by the Municipal Corporation, Panipat in the previous suit. ... 08.12.2022 (Annexure P-3): Defendants/Petitioners filed Application for adducin....
Their Lordships have on previous occasions condemned this practice and approve of the course taken by the High Court in treating the plaintiff as a person who put the first defendant forward as a witness of truth...” ... He would submit that the fourth defendant has been acting as a Power of Attorney of the 1 & 3 defendants and they have not taken any steps to undo the Power of Attorney or even call upon the Power of Attorney to exp....
Their Lordships have on previous occasions condemned this practice and approve of the course taken by the High Court in treating the plaintiff as a person who put the first defendant forward as a witness of truth...” ... He would submit that the fourth defendant has been acting as a Power of Attorney of the 1 & 3 defendants and they have not taken any steps to undo the Power of Attorney or even call upon the Power of Attorney to exp....
The background of the case is that, the parties have led their evidence and argument was completed. But when the matter was posted for judgment, at that stage a petition was filed by Defendants 1 to 3 to adduce the certified copy of such previous statement of P.W.1 in the present suit. ... But the trial court had stated that the application was filed at the stage of arguments, seeking to produce those documents and sought to rely upon the documents. ... After closure ....
The defendant contested the suit. In the written statement filed by him, various technical objections were taken, He claimed that Harnam Kaur was his grand-mother as well as she had given the suit land to Mehar Singh, according to his share. ... Besides the aforesaid fact, it is also apparent that the defendant in his written statement had merely stated as follows:- ... "7. Para No. 7 of the plaint is wrong and hence denied. ... On the other hand, the defen....
Debjit Mukherjee learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party in C.O.no. 3986 of 2024 contended that the suit is at the stage of argument and at such a belated stage, the plaintiff could not be allowed to recall the PW 1. ... Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Judge, in an earlier order dated 12th July, 2023 recorded that the defendant no. 2 will not produce any document in support of the statements made in ....
This is the view the court below has taken rightly.” ... The suit was then fixed for final argument. The petitioner in fact filed written notes of arguments as well. ... Om Parkash (1986) 4 SCC 155 has said thus : “The sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 22 authorises the legal representative of a deceased defendant to file an additional written statement or statement of objections raising all pleas which the deceased-defendan....
On 18. 8. 1992 the defendant appellant filed additional written statement. ... Besides, the plea of adverse possession was taken by the defendant which the courts below did not accept on the ground that the plea of adverse possession has not been taken in written statement and also extent of period and nature of adverse possession has also not been given. ... ... ( 7 ) THE first argument advanced on behalf of the ....
The petitioners now seek to lay blame on the learned advocate who was representing them at the relevant time, on the ground that he did not inform them that they are required to produce such documents along with written statement. ... Bhatt had not informed them that they were required to produce documentary evidence along with their written statement and they were not aware of any such requirement and now that they have engaged a new advocate, he ha....
However, subsequent purchasers filed independent written statement. Hence, issues are to be framed on purchasers who filed individual written statement and the advocate filed power for defendant No.15 with no objection from previous counsel.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that a reading of the written statement and additional written statement would show that the 2nd defendant is not deviating from his earlier stand taken in the additional written statement. In view of the stand taken by the plaintiff during trial and after verification of revenue records, it has become necessary for the 2nd defendant to raise the additional pleadings. In such circumstances, delay shall not defeat his case being brought to the notice of the Court.
Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that now written statement has been filed and the suit is ripe for trial. Thus, it could be seen that insofar as the suit schedule mentioned property is concerned, where the petitioner Mandram has put-up a construction, with asbestos sheets, injunction is in force against the defendants therein. Hence on 04.01.2012, the learned District Munsif, Aruppukkottai, has allowed the interlocutory application and granted interim injunction.
Learned counsel also tried to impress us that the order passed on the petition under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VIII Rule 9 will not operate as res judicata on the subsequent application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court has not correctly appreciated the settled principle of law and has passed the impugned order without considering the entire gamut of the case. Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, Senior Advocate and Mr. Huzefa A. Ahmadi, Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant-appell....
In the opinion of this Court, if plaintiffs are permitted to carry out amendment in the plaint then defendant has every right to file additional written statement and in such eventuality defendant is permitted to take all the legal pleas available to him which were not previously taken by him. However, defendant can not take those additional pleas in the additional written statement which are inconsistent to the pleas already taken in the original written statement. In the present case, I am unable to find out that pleas being taken by the defendant in the additional writte....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
