Legal Analysis: Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh

Citation: 2026 INSC 545
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Decision: May 26, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34411 of 2025 against the order of the Calcutta High Court permitting filing of an additional written statement.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant was in unlawful possession and sought eviction. The defendant filed a written statement claiming she was a bona fide co‑sharer. Issues were framed and trial commenced; the plaintiff’s witness was examined and cross‑examined. Thereafter, the defendant sought leave under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to file an additional written statement, now claiming she was a tenant under the plaintiff – a complete volte‑face from her earlier stand. The Trial Court rejected the application. The High Court, in revision, permitted the additional written statement on payment of costs, holding that the new facts were necessary for deciding the real controversy. The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. It held that the defendant’s attempt to introduce a totally inconsistent and contradictory case was contrary to Order 6 Rule 7 CPC and amounted to an abuse of process, especially when the amendment of pleadings was barred by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC after commencement of trial.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: Mondira Ghosh v. Chaitali Ghosh

• Citation: 2026 INSC 545

• Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34411 of 2025

• Bench: Division Bench (Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran)

• Date of Decision: May 26, 2026

• Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

• Impugned Order: Order dated 03.09.2025 of the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 3172 of 2025.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 6 Rule 7 (pleadings not to be inconsistent), Order 6 Rule 17 (amendment of pleadings – proviso bars amendment after commencement of trial), Order 8 Rule 9 (subsequent pleadings – addit

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.