( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the petitioner. He filed a suit against the four defendants for recovering a sum of Rs. 437-3-0. The claim was founded on a document described as Gurthu Lekha. The main defence to the suit was that the document called Gurthu Lekha was really a promissory note as it contained a recital that the money would be paid on demand and since this document was not stamped no suit could be based on it. To get over thil objection, the plaintiff sought the permission of the court to amend the plaint by allowing him to base the claim on the original borrowing. It was alleged that the money wag borrowed at about 9 a. m. on 21-1-1950, but the document originally relied on was executed two or three hours later as a security for repayment of the debt. This application was opposed by the defendants on various grownds: (1) that the present story as set out in the affidavit in support of the petition for amendment that the original borrowing was dissociated from the document is untrue : (2) that the facts now alleged must have been known to the plaintiff and not having chosen to state them in the original plaint, he should not be permitted to introduce th