respondents—I cannot tell, since the evidence is incomplete—but I am certain that we should do worse justice to the appellants, since, in my view, they were entitled to conduct the case and confine their evidence in reliance on the further and better particulars of Para 2 of the statement of claim which had been delivered by the respondents. It seems to me that it is the purpose of such particulars that they should help to define the issues, and to indicate to the party who asks for them how much of the range of his possible evidence will be relevant, and how much irrelevant, to those issues.‖ It is clear that Lord Radcliffe was of the opinion that issues arise from the pleadings to which the parties should be confined in the trial and this is consistent with Order 15 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. At page 873 he further held as follows: ―In my view, where the question is, as here, as to sufficiency of evidence, the state of the pleadings is of more importance than the way in which the case is shaped in argument. It is clear that no application was made to the trial judge to amend the pleadings by altering or extending the particulars, and it is equally clear from what he says at the close of his judgment that he did not regard himself as having expressly or impliedly authorised any such amendment. That being so, I am of opinion that the appellants called as much evidence as was required of them to defend themselves from the charges of negligence that were made in this case.‖ Order 15 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is pertinent to the question of issues which are to be tried by the court. It provides that the issues arise when a material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Specifically it provides under Order 15 rule 1 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules that: "(2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact, which a Plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a Defendant must allege in order to constitute a defence." The allegations are contained in the pleadings and the pleadings give notice of material propositions of law or fact which the opposite side is alleging either to show a right to sue or in order to constitute a defence. According to Odgers Principles of Pleading and Practice in Civil Actions in the High Court of Justice (supra) at page 88 thereof the main purpose of the rules is to compel each party to state clearly and intelligibly the material facts on which he relies, omitting everything immaterial and to insist on his opponent frankly admitting or explicitly denying every material matter alleged against him and by that method they speedily arrive at an issue. It is therefore not permissible for a party to make allegations inconsistent with their pleadings because first of all it is contrary to the rules of pleading to give fair notice to the other side and allow them to make a reply or to apply for further and better particulars to be ambushed at the stage of submissions with a different defence or case.