1. This is a petition to revise the order of the lower Court refusing an amendment of the plaint. In view of the facts appearing from the judgment of the lower Court itself, I am unable to see that there is any lack of good faith in the matter of the application for amendment. There is, if I may say so, even less justification for the view that an inconsistent claim is sought to be introduced by the amendment.
2. The suit was admittedly on a particular document. The plaint as originally presented no doubt read that document in a particular way and the written statement seems to have filed with reference to that reading of the document. The application for amendment was made not with reference to anything de hors that document but with reference to the contents of the document itself. Whether the original reading of the document is correct or the reading suggested later is the proper reading, is not a matter to be decided at this stage. When the claim is made on the document, the fact that at one stage it was read in a particular way and now it is sought to be read in another way will certainly not justify the view that a new and inconsistent cause of action is sought to be introduced. They are really alternative ways of reading the document and it will be for the Court ultimately to decide what its correct construction is.
3. Whether on the amendment the plaintiff has improved his case or not, is again not a matter now to be decided; it is really a question on the merits. I am, therefore, obliged to set aside the order of the lower Court refusing permission for the amendment. But I agree with Mr. Govinda Menon that his client will be at liberty to raise all defences legitimately open to him on this new reading of the document, whether such defences have been raised in the original written statement or not.
4. The revision petition is, accordingly allowed. The costs of the Civil Revision Petition will abide the result of the suit and be provided for in the decree of the lower Court.