WADHWA AND ASSOCIATES REALTORS PVT LTD AND ORS v. SARIN TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD
Impermissibility of Filing Additional Written Statements to Withdraw Categorical Admissions or Introduce Diametrically Opposite Defences post-Original Pleading.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:14171
Decision Date: 25-03-2026
List of Laws
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Civil Procedure and Pleadings
- Facts: The Respondent-Plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of a security deposit of Rs.49,93,920/- following the termination of a Leave and Licence Agreement. In the original written statement filed on 4 August 2022, the Petitioners-Defendants admitted their liability to refund the deposit, subject only to a small deduction of Rs.5,42,225/- for outstanding dues. Subsequently, the Plaintiff moved for a summary judgment based on these admissions. Following this, the Defendants sought leave to file an additional written statement to introduce a claim of Rs.96,82,345/- for repairs and loss of rental income, attributing the omission in the first pleading to the inadvertence of their previous Advocate.
- Procedural Posture: The City Civil Court, Mumbai, rejected the Defendants' Notice of Motion seeking leave to file the additional written statement. The Defendants challenged this rejection before the Bombay High Court through a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Issue: Whether a defendant can be permitted to file an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC to introduce new claims and defences that effectively withdraw or contradict clear and categorical admissions made in the original written statement.
- Holding: No, the court held that while the power to allow subsequent pleadings is discretionary, it cannot be exercised to permit a party to wriggle out of unequivocal admissions or to completely displace the plaintiff's case through a total departure from original pleadings.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that although Order VIII Rule 9 allows for subsequent pleadings with the leave of the court, such discretion must be exercised judiciously. While a liberal approach is generally adopted for amending written statements, it does not extend to cases where the amendment seeks to substitute an entirely different case or wipe out explicit admissions. In this instance, the original written statement contained repeated and clear admissions of liability. The proposed additional statement was not a mere explanation of a "stray sentence" but a "complete departure" intended to salvage the Defendants' position after a summary judgment motion was filed. Furthermore, the Court noted that the proposed additional statement lacked the essential requirements of a counter-claim, such as the date of accrual of cause of action or payment of court fees, suggesting it was an afterthought to delay proceedings.
🔒 For Members Only