( 1 ) THE rules and the principles of case law have never been treated as final truths, but as working hypotheses, continually retested in great laboratories of the law, the Courts of justice. Every new case is an experiment ; and if the expected rule which seems applicable yields a result which is felt to be unjust the rule is reconsidered -aid Cordozo (The Nature of The Judicial Process, p. 23 ). It is this philosophical approach to rule of law which has persuaded two learned Single Judges of this Court seeking resolution of conflict in judicial opinion on a point of frequent recurrence before the Courts of law. This is how three matters are before the full Bench.

( 2 ) SAO 276/79 is an appeal preferred by a landlord who has lost his eviction petition from the Court of the Rent Controller and also from Rent Control Tribunal in appeal. One of the grounds of eviction pleaded by the landlord was that the defendant has constructed a house at Golf Links New Delhi. In the petition the house was described as 61, Glof Links. later on the landlord learnt that the number of the house constructed by the tenant was 62, Glof Links, and not 61, golf Links. He sought for an amendment of the eviction petition by substituting 62 in place of 61 which was allowed. Consequent to the petition having been amended, the tenant filed a new written statement to the amended petition. In the new written statement the tenant took a somersault over his earlier written statement and pleaded such facts as were at substantial-if not total-variance with the written statement as originally filed.

2. 1. WHEN the appeal came up for hearing before Usha Mehra, J. she noticed a conflict of judicial opinion, so far as Delhi High Court is concerned, on the question whether a defendant can have the right or liberty of filing an entirely new written statement in response to a limited amendment allowed in the petition/plaint. She, vide order dated 7. 2. 97, directed the matter to be referred to a Division Bench.

2. 2. The Division Bench before which the reference came up for hearing on 24. 2. 98 formed an opinion that one of the decisions, namely Girdhari Lal v. Krishan Dutt, AIR 1960 Punjab 575, being a decision by a Division Bench of Punjab High Court, which is the predecessor, High Court of Delhi High Court, the Division Bench view was binding on a later Division Bench and hence the question deserved appropriately to be dealt with by a Full Bench. Accordingly a Full Bench has been constituted by Hon ble the Chief Justice.

( 3 ) IN Suit No. 2092/89 also a similar question arose before Usha Mehra, J. who vide order dated 5. 8. 94 directed the matter to be placed before a Larger Bench.

3. 1. THE plaintiff has sought amendment in his plaint to a limited extent amending the cause title of the suit. According to his there was a mis-description in the cause title part. Because of some confusion, instead of suing as a proprietor of a sole proprietary firm the plaintiff had filed the suit in the name of a firm suing through its partners. The prayer for amendment was allowed. Then arose the question whether a new written statement was permissible to be filed by the defendant or merely an additional pleading by the defendant by way of reply limited to the amendment allowed in the plaint was called for and could be allowed.

( 4 ) IN Suit No. 3139/91, fresh paras 5a, 5b, 5c, 8a, 8b, 10a, 17a were permitted to be added in the plaint by way of amendment. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement to the amended plaint wherein he raised pleas not limited to the amendment allowed. The question arose whether he could raise such pleadings which went much beyond the reply to the pleas introduced by way of amendment in the plaint. K. S. Gupta, J. vide order dated 17. 7. 98 having noticed the pendency of reference before the Division Bench, directed this suit also to be clubbed with the reference which has been allowed by the Hon ble Chief Justice.

( 5 ) WE are