statement, but, whatever canvassed was in projecting the new defence as indicated above. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed Ext.P12 order passed by the learned Sub Judge relying on Baldev Singh and Others v. Manohar Singh and Another (2006(6) SCC 498) and contended that in the matter of amendment of the plaint and written statement though the general principles applicable are the same, in the case of the latter it is liberal permitting the defendant to set up inconsistent pleas as well. The rigour or restriction in permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint as such is inapplicable in the case of a defendant in the matter of amending his written statement, is the submission of the learned counsel. In amendment of the written statement the Apex Court has pointed out in the above decision, according to the learned counsel, that the courts are more liberal than in amendment of the plaint as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in such cases. When the defendant has been permitted to file an additional written statement in answer to the amended plaint, according to the learned counsel, essentially that is an order passed under Order VIII Rule 9 of the
