The Calcutta High Court has categorically held that plaintiffs cannot amend their plaint solely to deny allegations in the written statement, reaffirming that such denials are presumed and need not be specifically pleaded. The judgment upholds settled precedent, clarifies the permissible scope of amendments and replications, and serves as binding authority for all subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CO/1238/2025 of BIRENDRA NATH BARMAN Vs MANIK GURI AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0160302025 |
| Date of Registration | 04-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 24-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within West Bengal |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing law |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Pleadings; Amendments under Order 6 Rule 17, Replication under Order 8 Rule 9) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that there is no requirement for a plaintiff to specifically deny allegations in the written statement by way of amendment or replication; such denials are presumed. Amendments to the plaint that merely seek to deny the defendant’s case do not fulfill the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties and should not be permitted. The decision affirms that pleadings should not be allowed to become unnecessarily voluminous or repetitive, and amendments must be necessary for resolving substantive disputes. Replications or subsequent pleadings by the plaintiff are not required unless permitted by the Court for appropriate reasons under Order 8 Rule 9. The trial court’s refusal to allow such an amendment was proper. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint to change the description of the property and to insert new paragraphs denying allegations made by the defendants regarding relinquishment of right, title, and possession. The trial court allowed only the amendment relating to property description, refusing the rest as they amounted to mere denials. The plaintiff challenged the refusal under Article 227. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate civil courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For |
|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that the plaintiff is not required to specifically amend the plaint to deny allegations in the defendant’s written statement—such denials are presumed in law.
- Amendment of plaint for the sole purpose of denying defendants’ factual assertions cannot be permitted under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
- Replication to the written statement is allowed only with the Court’s leave and is not a matter of right (Order 8 Rule 9 CPC).
- Amendment must be necessary to decide the real controversy; mere duplication or reiteration of already pleaded facts or denials is not permissible.
- Lawyers should avoid filing superfluous applications for amendment or replication where the existing pleadings suffice, and should focus on substantive, not merely formal, amendments.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the statutory scheme under Order 6 (pleadings), Order 7 (plaint), and Order 8 (written statement, replications) CPC.
- Reaffirmed that defendants must specifically deny allegations in the plaint (Order 8), but there is no reciprocal requirement for plaintiffs to deny each and every assertion made in the written statement; such denials are presumed.
- Discussed Roshan Lal v. Prem Prakash (AIR 1980 Patna 59) to assert that a plaintiff may rebut factual claims in evidence even without a replication.
- Cited Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh (2024) 9 SCC 353 regarding the scope of “subsequent pleadings” and the limited circumstances under which leave to file a replication is warranted.
- Relied on P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha (2009) 14 SCC 525 to reaffirm that amendments must aid in resolving the real controversy and are not for mere repetitive formalities.
- Evaluated the proposed amendments and found them either to be unnecessary reiterations or mere denials, which did not meet the threshold for permissible amendment under Order 6 Rule 17.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The amendment was necessary to controvert defendants’ allegations in the written statement.
- Sought to amend plaint by inserting new paragraphs for this purpose.
- Invoked Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to argue plaintiff’s right to file a replication to meet the new case raised by the defendants.
- Relied on Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh (2024) 9 SCC 353.
Respondent
- Contended that the application for amendment was solely for the purpose of denying the defendant’s case and not to address any real controversy.
- Asserted that the plaint cannot be amended merely to introduce denials.
- Cited P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha (2009) 14 SCC 525 to argue that only amendments necessary for deciding real disputes should be permitted.
Factual Background
The dispute arose out of a property transaction, where the plaintiff, having purchased land and a portion of a waterbody, alleged illegal interference by the defendants. The defendants claimed the plaintiff had relinquished his rights in favor of a deity, represented by the local community. During the pendency of the suit for declaration and injunction, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to (a) alter the property description and (b) insert several new paragraphs directly denying the allegations in the written statement. The trial court allowed only the amendment to property description and declined the rest, prompting the plaintiff’s challenge under Article 227.
Statutory Analysis
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC: Grants courts the power to permit amendments to pleadings if necessary for the real controversy; amendments must not be superfluous or for mere denial.
- Order 8 Rule 9 CPC: Governs subsequent pleadings (like replications); such pleadings require leave of the court and are not a matter of right. The plaintiff can file a subsequent pleading only if permitted by the court, and only in circumstances where it is substantively necessary.
- The Court clarified that neither Order 6 Rule 17 nor Order 8 Rule 9 require or permit mere denials by amendment or replication; substantive necessity is the test.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, changes to evidence requirements, or guidelines were issued by the Court in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies existing Supreme Court precedents (Noorul Hassan; P.A. Jayalakshmi) and clarifies procedural law in harmony with prior authority.