Honble D. B. Lal, J.—In these three revisions: C. R. No. 2 of 1976, C. R. No. 40 of 1976 and C. R. No. 33 of 1974, since a common question of law arises for our consideration, we have chosen to decide them by giving a common judgment.

2. In C. R. No. 2 of 1976, the original claim of the plaintiff-respondent was of Rs. 20,360 and subsequently by way of amendment the plaintiff sought for the enhanced claim of Rs. 35,800. Accordingly after allowing the amendment, under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code the court asked for additional written statement. When the said additional written statement was filed, it was alleged that certain new grounds of claim were pleaded and certain allegations of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings were also made. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendant, without seeking amendment of the written statement, could not take up such new pleas which could even be inconsistent with the pleas already taken in the previous written statement. Following a decision of this Court in Dittu Ram v. Amar Chand, AIR 1961 Himachal Pradesh 46, the Subordinate Judge did not permit the defendant to file the additional written statement.