N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) THE question is whether a party to a suit can be permitted to raise subsequently a plea which is incompatible or inconsistent with the plea taken up on the earlier occasion in the earlier pleadings. The very genesis of the law of pleadings is that the Court and the receptive parties should have full knowledge of the case of the both parties so that the subseq- uent trial may proceed in that well defined channel and no prejudice is caused to either of the sides by rambling and meandering course of trial. This very principle is laid-down in Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code which reads as follows: rule 9. No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set off shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit. . . . . This legislative mandate has been laid-down in an imperative langu- age which is too clear to call for any aid of cannons of construction and the purpose underlying is that the parties must know as to what is the case of the other side which it is called upon to meet. ( 3 ) THE same conclusion can be had also from the equally mandatory provisions of Order 6 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code which read as under: rule 7: No pleading shall except by way of amendment raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same. Order 6 of the Civil Procedure Code dea-ls generally with the pleadings of both the plaintiff and the defendant and the legislative mandate quoted above is applicable both to the plaint and to the written statement. It is therefore clear that what has been stated once as an allegation of fact or as a ground of a claim or an attack has got to be stuck to by the parties and any change in that stand can be taken note of by the Court only by way of amendment which is permissible only under the established principles of law. ( 4 ) MR. ( 4 ) MR. Shah the learned Advocate however contended that when- ever a plaint is amended by the plaintiff a right accrues to the defendant to file a written statement to the amended plaint and once this right accrues to the defendant what is stated expressly or impliedly by the defendant in the earlier written statement would not bar his right to take up whatever stand the said defendant likes irrespective of the stand taken by him in the earlier written statement. Taken to its logical limits Mr. Shahs plea would mean that even if the defendant has admitted specifi- cally or expressly anything in his earlier written statement from his personal knowledge it would be open to him in his second and subsequent written Statement to withdraw the same without seeking the amendment of the earlier written statement and take up even an incompatible stand. In other words Mr. Shahs submission would come to this that a defendant would have a right to obliterate his earlier written statement from the record - in fact the earlier statement remains on the record - if he so feels and it would not be open to the Court to have recourse to the earlier written statement to find out the stand taken therein in respect of a particular matter. In my view this is absolutely abhorrent of the con- cept of law of pleadings as envisaged in the Civil Procedure Code. In my view a defendant has got a right when he is permitted to file his written statement to the amended plaint to have his say only with respect to the matter introduced by amendment and no further. Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code in its latter part no doubt confers discretion on the Court to require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same. It is already implicit in such powers to that they are to be exercised ex debito justitiae. The Court exercising its discretionary powers does so only to advance the cause of justice and such a power assuming that it was exercised in this case did not permit the defendant to change the whole front and raise a contention which was not consistent with the earlier stand taken by him. The Court exercising its discretionary powers does so only to advance the cause of justice and such a power assuming that it was exercised in this case did not permit the defendant to change the whole front and raise a contention which was not consistent with the earlier stand taken by him. The fact that the Court served the defendant with a copy of the amended plaint and gave him time to file additional written statement does not mean that the court had given him liberty to treat the subject matter afresh in the manner he liked ignoring the earlier written statement filed by him As stated above the Courts permission unless so expressed or otherwise shown must be understood to have given him permission to file an additional written statement in respect of the amended portion and no further. It is therefore not possible to subscribe to Mr. Shahs contention that the Court had required the defendant to file the additional statement though there is nothing which the court required him to do that and to hold further that the court gave him liberty to give a go-bye to the stand earlier taken by him and to have the free ride in the matter. No such permission or requirement can be attributed to the Court much less by implication and Mr. Shahs submission on this score is difficult to be entertained. ( 5 ) MR. Shah however in this connection invited my attention to the judgment of the Punjab High Court in the case of NEW BANK OF INDIA LTD. V. SMT. RAJ RANI W/o JAIKISAN DASS AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN A. I. R. 1966 PUNJAB 162 which followed the earlier decision of the Punjab High Court referred to in A. I. R. 1960 Punjab 575 (GIRDHARILAL V. KRISHAN DATT ). It cannot be gain-said that the Punjab High Court has made certain observations which would support the say of Mr. Shah. The Punjab High Court examined the case from a different angle. It cannot be gain-said that the Punjab High Court has made certain observations which would support the say of Mr. Shah. The Punjab High Court examined the case from a different angle. According to the Punjab view the crucial test in deciding whether the fresh written statement should be confined to the amended portion of the plaint only is of the true nature of the order passed by the Court when it permits a fresh plaint to be filed and according to that view unless the Court had at that stage specifically restricted the fresh plea to the amended material it was perfectly open to the defendant to put in fresh written statement un- trammelled by his plea in his earlier written statement. In my estimation the view of the Punjab High Court does not take note of the mandatory provisions of Order 6 Rule 7 and Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. As stated above the Courts power to permit the written statement is subject to the other provisions of law namely Order 6 Rule 7 and subject to the general principles that under the law of pleadings a party is not permitted to blow hot and cold in different breaths. That is exactly what is prohibited by the enactment of the provisions of law pleadings. I view the case from a different angle and unless there are words in the Courts order permitting the defendant to raise any ground he liked uninhibited by what he had earlier stated on solemn affirmation before the permission to file additional written statement must be confined to the additional matter alone and no further. The view of the Punjab High Court in my estimation runs counter to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 7 and Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and with respects I am unable to subscribe to the same. In this connection Mr. Shah has also called to his aid the case of CHANDRA KISHORE DAS V. BABULAL AGARWALA AND OTHERS A. I. R. 1949 ORISSA 77. In that case it has been held that Order 8 Rule 9 enables the Court to require a written state- ment from any of the parties at any time. In this connection Mr. Shah has also called to his aid the case of CHANDRA KISHORE DAS V. BABULAL AGARWALA AND OTHERS A. I. R. 1949 ORISSA 77. In that case it has been held that Order 8 Rule 9 enables the Court to require a written state- ment from any of the parties at any time. The authority proceeded to observe that after the plaint is amended it becomes the duty of the Court to call upon the defendant to file the additional written statement particularly after the newly added defendant had filed his written statement. I fail to comprehend how this authority buttresses the plea put forth by Mr. Shah that Order 8 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code casts on the Court a duty to see that a newly amended material is replied to by the other side and for that purpose the Court may call upon the defendant to file an additional written statement. But this does not and cannot mean that the Court should allow liberty to the defendant to deal with the matter in an arbitrary manner and ignore the stand the he had disclosed to the Court on the earlier occasion and plead something contrary to what he had done before. ( 6 ) IF any support for the view which I have mentioned above is needed recourse can be had to the case of DITTU RAM V. AMAR CHAND A. I. R. 1961 HIMACHAL PRADESH 46. In this judgment it has been laid-down in a clear and categorical manner by the Judicial Commissioner that a party does not have a right to amend a previous pleading without the permission of the Court and it would be a violation of the principles of pleadings and in general and of provisions of Order 6 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code in particular if on the amendment of the plaint a defen- dant is allowed to put forward pleas which are not in answer to the fresh matter introduced by the amendment of the plaint and are inconsistent with the pleas previously put forward. ( 7 ) MR. ( 7 ) MR. Shahs submission therefore carried to its logical limits would confer on the defendant power to amend his written statement without recourse to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code under which amendment could be effected only if the Court after examining the perspectives of the case grants the party specific permission. In this view of the matter Mr. Shahs submission based on the authority of the Punjab High Court cannot be upheld. Appeal dismissed. .