Short Note : 1. The revision was directed against an interlocutory order where the learned Additional District Judge had rejected the applicant's application for leave to amend the original application, which was made under section 8 of the Arbitration Act, for appointment of an arbitrator. The trial Court had rejected that application saying that the proceeding and scope of section 8 and those of section 20 were quite different and both remedies under section 8 and section 20 could not go together. This, according to the trial Court, would change the fundamental character of the petition under section 8 of the Arbitration Act and would introduce totally a different case. The trial Court had further observed that an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act was a miscellaneous proceeding, whereas, a proceeding under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, was a suit. 2. Held: Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, this Court has formed the view that the order of the trial Court must be set aside. The applicant did not seek any amendment so as to introduce any new facts; on the basis of the same facts he wanted to convert his application, which was initially stayed as one under section 8 to one under section 20. Merely because one proceeding is altered as a miscellaneous proceeding in the Court and another as a suit, does not mean that the fundamental character of the proceeding is altered The party has to allege material facts which form the cause of action and to state the relief it claims. In the present case by the amendment, the cause of action or the fundamental character of the petition is not altered. It is only a different Or additional approach to the same facts. The plaintiff wants the relief on facts stated by him. If a proceeding is to be treated as a suit and the applicant who will then be called plaintiff has to pay Court-fee that could not be a ground for refusing leave to amend the application. A. K. Gupta v. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 relied on. Revision allowed.