Judgment

SARKAR, J. (On behalf of himself and Ramaswami J.) : The question raised in this appeal is whether the High Court was in error in refusing permission to the appellant to amend its plaint. We think it was.

2. The appellant had done work for the respondent under a contract which only specified the rates for different categories of work. The contract contained the following clause: "This quotation is based on prevailing labour rate of Rs. 1-4-0 per cooly but if there is increase of labour rate of more than 10 per cent in any particular month the proportionate increase in rate will be charged". Subsequent to the making of the contract there was an increase in the labour rate per cooly by 20 per cent. The appellant claimed that under the clause it was entitled to the whole amount of the increase while the respondent contended that it was entitled to a part of it only. This was the only dispute between the parties in respect of the contract. There was no other dispute either concerning the quantity or quality of the work done or otherwise howsoever.

3. The appellant filed a suit against the respondent only claiming a declaration that on a proper interpretation of the clause it was