Amended pleadings that only elaborate an existing plea do not automatically justify fresh evidence.

Where a plaint amendment merely elaborates an existing plea and does not introduce a new foundation of claim, it does not by itself entitle the party to lead fresh evidence. The court treated the amendment as an expansion of the already pleaded case, not a change in the nature of the claim, and therefore found no basis for additional evidence on that ground. The trial court's refusal to permit fresh evidence was upheld, and the revision petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after an amendment to the plaint is allowed only to elaborate an existing plea, the plaintiffs are entitled to lead fresh evidence.

Analysis: The plea sought to be introduced by amendment was already substantially present in the plaint, and the amendment merely expanded that existing case. Since the amendment did not introduce a new foundation of claim but only elaborated the pleaded case, there was no basis to permit the plaintiffs to adduce fresh evidence on that account.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not entitled to lead fresh evidence merely because the plaint amendment was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed and the trial court's refusal to permit fresh evidence was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment allowed only to elaborate an existing plea does not, by itself, entitle the party to lead fresh evidence.

---