1. The revision was against an interlocutory order whereby the plaintiff was refused leave to amend the plaint.

2. The plaintiff's suit, as originally constituted was to challenge termination of his service. He alleged malice on the part of the Principal in terminating his services. He claimed reinstatement and a declaration that he should be deemed to be continuing in service. The plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint. He wanted to introduce certain facts to show malice which the Principal bore against him. The learned trial Judge rejected the application saying that it was sufficient to allege malice and it was not necessary for the plaintiff to allege the circumstances proving it. They can be brought in evidence. This order is contrary to law of pleading According to the law of pleading all facts must be averred in the plaint. Evidence need not be clear. The learned trial Judge ought to have made a distinction between allegations of facts and enumeration of evidence. Malice having been pleaded initially in the plaint, the plaintiff was only amplifying his pleading by stating facts. The trial Court does not say in the impugned order that the cause of action i