I have no doubt whatever that the amendment of the written statement, on the facts of this particular case, ought to have been allowed, and that the learned Judge was in error in declining to permit the verbal amendment. Actually, there are authorities of the Supreme Court, which I need not set forth here, for the view that, in such matters, Courts should adopt a fairly liberal attitude, unless the nature of the amendment is such as to alter the basis of the suit altogether, or to introduce some new ground of fact which was not earlier in the pleading. It appears to me that, in these days when the knowledge of a language like English and the accurate use of it are both showing signs of diminution rather than increase, it is all the more essential that a Court should be liberal, before inhibiting a party from making a verbal amendment to his pleadings.

Very briefly the facts here are that, in respect of a document in writing relied on by the plaintiff as constituting a negotiable instrument upon which he could enforce his claim, on the principle of section 25, sub-clause (3) of the Contract Act the defendant originally stated in his written statement that he did not " conscious