"15. Let us now take up the last ground on which the application for amendment of the written statement was rejected by the High Court as well as the trial B court. The rejection was made on the ground that inconsistent plea cannot be allowed to be taken. We are unable to appreciate the ground of rejection made by the High Court as well as the trial court. After going through the pleadings and also the statements c made in the application for amendment of the written statement, we fail to understand how inconsistent plea could be said to have been taken by the appellants in their application for amendment of the written statement, excepting the plea taken by the D appellants in the application for amendment of written statement regarding the joint ownership of the suit , property. Accordingly, on facts, we are not satisfied . that the application for amendment of the written statement could be rejected also on this ground. That E apart, it is now well settled that an amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle. It is true that some general principles are certainly common to both, but the rules that the plaintiff cannot F be allowed to amend his pleadings so as to alter materially or substitute his cause of action or the nature of his claim has necessarily no counterpart in the law relating to amendment of the written statement. Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the G same problem as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action. Accordingly, iri the case of amendment of written statement, the courts are i.nclined to be more liberal in allowing amendment of ·the written statement than of plaint and question of
