In a significant judgment reiterating the principles governing civil pleadings, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petition No. 276 of 2025, filed by Molleti Veera Kumara Swami, observing that “a subsequent pleading is not a substitute for amendment,” especially when it introduces an inconsistent stand.
Background of the Case
The civil dispute traces back to O.S. No. 53 of 2017, filed by Maddala Venkateswara Pentayyanaidu before the X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli. The plaintiff sought recovery of ₹64,54,933 with 24% interest per annum, relying on two promissory notes dated December 8, 2014.
The defendant, Molleti Veera Kumara Swami, in his original written statement filed in June 2018, categorically denied executing the promissory notes and claimed that no loan was ever taken.
However, in 2024, when the matter reached the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiff, the defendant moved I.A. No. 804 of 2024 under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to file an additional written statement. In this new version, he introduced a new plea — that the signatures on the promissory notes and non-judicial stamps were obtained forcibly and fraudulently, thus alleging coercion and fabrication.
The trial court rejected the application on December 12, 2024, leading to the present civil revision petition.
Arguments and Legal Issues
Appearing for the petitioner, Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva contended that the additional written statement was essential to explain facts already alluded to in the original defence. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in LIC v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., [(2018) 11 SCC 722], arguing that courts have the power to allow such pleadings at any time.
The primary issues before the High Court were:
1. Whether a defendant can introduce a new and inconsistent plea through a subsequent pleading under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC?
2. Whether delay of five years in bringing such a plea could be condoned?
3. Whether such a plea amounts to amendment and not merely an explanation?
Court’s Observations
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari delivered a detailed analysis of the law governing subsequent pleadings under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. Referring to key precedents including:
– Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh [(2024) 9 SCC 353]
– State of Rajasthan v. Mohammed Ikbal [1998 SCC OnLine Raj 46]
– Mukut Raj Laxmi v. Dr. Jitendra Singh [2015 SCC OnLine Raj 7054]
– Novartis AG v. NATCO Pharma Ltd. [2025 SCC OnLine Del 27]
The Court reiterated:
“A replication is not a substitute for an amendment; and a new cause of action or plea inconsistent with the plea taken in original petition/plaint is not to be permitted.”
Justice Tilhari noted that in the original written statement, the defendant had completely denied execution of the promissory notes. But in the additional pleading, he attempted to take a contradictory position by claiming signatures were forcibly obtained — effectively introducing an entirely new case.
The Court observed:
“It cannot be said that the subsequent pleading was explaining an already existing plea. It amounts to an amendment of the pleadings of the written statement, which cannot be permitted.”
Further, the Court rejected the plea on the ground of delay, holding:
“The application was also highly belated, filed almost five years after the written statement and nearly seven years after institution of the suit.”
Justice Tilhari clarified that while a court may permit additional pleadings on its own at any time, parties cannot seek such indulgence as a matter of right, especially after undue delay.
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, holding that the trial court rightly refused permission for filing the additional written statement. No costs were awarded.
