Case Background
The dispute arose out of a family partition case relating to land at village Sonai and village Mahisouri in Jamui district. The respondents, as plaintiffs, had filed Title Suit No. 37 of 2004 before the court of Sub Judge-I, Jamui. They sought a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property, asking that their shares be declared and separated with the help of a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner, along with other related reliefs.
During the pendency of this partition suit, the plaintiffs moved an amendment petition dated 6.6.2013. They requested that the land mentioned in Schedule II of the plaint relating to village Mahisouri (Jamui), appertaining to Khata No. 129, Plot No. 911, area 4 decimals, be deleted from the scheduled property. Consequentially, they sought correction of the total area of 19 decimals of land at village Mahisouri to 15 decimals.
The trial court allowed this amendment by order dated 20th August 2013. The court considered the request and permitted the plaintiffs to delete that portion of the land from the schedule of the plaint. No direction was given at that time regarding filing of any amended written statement or additional written statement by the defendants.
After this amendment, on 2nd September 2013, the defendants, who later became petitioners before the Patna High Court, filed an application seeking permission to file an additional written statement. However, as recorded in the judgment, this application was not moved before the court.
On 13th September 2013, the defendants filed a written statement described as an additional written statement, stating that it supplemented and explained their earlier written statement dated 11th February 2010. This additional written statement was brought on record without any specific leave granted by the trial court to do so.
The plaintiffs then responded by filing an application dated 16th December 2013 seeking rejection of this additional written statement. They pointed out that in their amendment allowed on 20.8.2013, no new facts had been introduced; it merely deleted some land. Hence, they argued, the defendants could not, without leave, file an additional written statement introducing a new story.
After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, the learned Sub Judge-I, Jamui, by order dated 2nd June 2016, rejected the defendants’ additional written statement dated 13th September 2013. Aggrieved by that order, the defendants approached the Patna High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 478 of 2017.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter came before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha of the Patna High Court. The Court heard learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no record in the judgment of any appearance or argument from the respondents’ side in the High Court.
The petitioners’ core grievance was that their additional written statement, filed on 13th September 2013, had been rejected by the Sub Judge-I, Jamui. They argued that the trial court’s order dated 2nd June 2016, rejecting their application dated 16th December 2013 in Title Suit No. 37 of 2004, was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
According to the petitioners’ counsel, once the trial court allowed the amendment of the plaint on 20th August 2013, the defendants were entitled to file an additional written statement. They pointed out that an application for permission to file such additional written statement had been filed on 2nd September 2013, though it had not been moved. They contended that their subsequent filing of the additional written statement on 13th September 2013 was only to supplement and explain their earlier written statement of 11th February 2010 in light of the amendment.
The petitioners objected to the reasons given by the trial court for rejection. The trial court had noted that the evidence of the plaintiffs had already closed and the case was at the stage of recording the defendants’ evidence. The trial court also observed that when the amendment in the plaint was allowed, it had not granted any liberty to the defendants to file an amended or additional written statement, and that the defendants had in fact filed the additional written statement without seeking permission of the court.
The petitioners requested the High Court to treat these lapses as mere irregularities that could be condoned. They argued that the trial court’s approach was contrary to Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On this basis, they asked the Patna High Court to direct the trial court to entertain a fresh petition and to consider bringing the additional written statement on record for the ends of justice.
The High Court first perused the record and recited some “explicit” facts. It noted that the amendment allowed on 20th August 2013 appeared to be only formal in nature. It did not introduce any new facts; it merely deleted a certain portion of the suit land which was already the subject matter before the trial court.
The High Court further noted that the amendment order did not grant the defendants any liberty to file an amended or additional written statement. The trial court had categorically observed that no new facts were introduced by the amendment. In spite of this, the defendants had, without the leave of the court, filed an additional written statement. From the impugned order, the High Court found that this additional written statement was, in substance, in the nature of an amendment to their earlier written statement and sought to introduce new facts.
Since the petitioners had argued that the trial court’s order offended Order VIII Rule 9, the High Court reproduced that provision. Order VIII Rule 9 states that no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant, other than by way of defence to set-off or counterclaim, can be presented except by leave of the court and upon such terms as the court thinks fit. It also empowers the court to require a written statement or additional written statement from any party and fix a time for presenting the same.
The High Court then applied this rule to the petitioners’ case. It held that, in view of the specific language of Order VIII Rule 9, no subsequent pleading could be filed by the defendant without obtaining prior leave of the court. The only exceptions concern a defence to set-off or a counterclaim, and the petitioners’ case did not fall within those exceptions.
The Court underlined that although a written statement or additional written statement can be filed, this is possible only with the leave of the court. Therefore, it was incumbent on the petitioners to seek such leave before filing the additional written statement. They failed to do so.
The High Court then looked at the broader circumstances. It observed that the original title suit before the trial court dated back to the year 2004. The amendment allowed in favour of the plaintiffs only deleted a portion of the suit land and, in the opinion of the trial court, did not introduce any new fact. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the defendants by that amendment.
Yet, the defendants had chosen to file an additional written statement without seeking the court’s permission. In these circumstances, the High Court agreed with the trial court that the additional written statement had been rightly rejected.
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no merit in the petition. Consequently, Civil Miscellaneous No. 478 of 2017 was dismissed at the admission stage itself, meaning that the High Court did not find sufficient grounds even to issue notice for a full hearing.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for parties involved in long-running civil suits, especially partition and family property cases. It shows that even if one side amends its plaint, the other side cannot automatically bring in a fresh or expanded defence without the court’s permission.
The decision reinforces that Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not a mere formality. Once a written statement is filed, any further written defence needs explicit leave of the court. If a party files an additional written statement without such leave, the court can reject it.
For litigants, this means that procedural steps must be followed carefully. Even where an amendment seems minor or formal, as in this case where only a part of the suit land was deleted, defendants cannot convert that into an opportunity to introduce a new story or new facts through an unauthorised additional written statement.
Practically, the judgment helps avoid delay in old suits. Here, the suit dated back to 2004. By refusing to permit an additional written statement filed without leave, the courts ensured that the matter would move forward based on the existing pleadings, rather than getting stalled over fresh disputes about new defences.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can defendants in a partition suit file an additional written statement introducing new facts after an amendment of the plaint, without obtaining the leave of the court under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that under Order VIII Rule 9, any pleading by the defendant after the original written statement requires prior leave of the court, except in cases of set-off or counterclaim. Since the petitioners filed the additional written statement without such leave, and the amendment of the plaint was only formal and did not introduce new facts, the trial court rightly rejected the additional written statement.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not mention or rely upon any other decided case. No prior case law is cited.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 478 of 2017 (arising out of Title Suit No. 37 of 2004, Sub Judge-I, Jamui)
Case Title: Nazma Khatoon & Ors v. Salma Karim & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Citation: 2024 (1) PLJR 671
Advocates: For the petitioners: Mr. Dronacharya, Advocate. For the respondents: Not specified in the judgment.
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 05-12-2023
Nature of the Case: Civil miscellaneous petition challenging the order dated 2nd June 2016 of Sub Judge-I, Jamui, rejecting an additional written statement in a title (partition) suit.
Link to Judgment:https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjNDc4IzIwMTcjMSNO-dIzybAoJ–ak1–II=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
