Nevaskar, J. - (1.)PLAINTIFF Girrajdas filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent in the Court of Small Causes Mandsaur on the basis of rent -note said to have been executed by the Defendant on 6 -5 -1943. This rent -note was not registered. The Defendant raised a defence that the suit on the basis of the rent -note was not competent. Plaintiff probably pressed by the decision in - 'Wamanrao v. Gopaldas' Civil Revn. No. 15 of 1951 (MB) (A) sought to amend the plaint by basing his cause of action on the basis of an oral tenancy anterior to the execution of the rent -note. This amendment was allowed by the trial court. The Defendant has preferred this revision petition against that decision.
(2.)MR . Malgava for the Petitioner contended that this amendment sought by the Plaintiff was not bona fide and ought not to have been allowed by the Court below. He also contends that this amendment changes the nature of the suit.
I am unable to agree with either of these contentions. The nature of the suit is not changed because the legal relationship as initially alleged remains exactly the same. Instead of supporting that relationship on the, basis of a written rent -note which according to the view taken in the aforesaid - 'Civil Revn. No. 15 of 1951 (MB) (A)' would be inadmissible he sought to rely upon the oral agreement of the tenancy. Apart from the question with regards to the merits of the matter, it could not be said that this changes the nature of the suit. Nor can the attempt be said to be wanting in bona fides. On Defendant's own showing a case on the basis of a written rent -note is not competent if in that case he sought to rely on the alternative stand with regard to the oral tenancy. I do not think that this in any way be said to be mala fide.

(3.)THERE is no substance in this revision application. It is accordingly dismissed.