JUDGMENT S. R. Rastogi, J. 1. THIS is a defendant's application in revision arising out of a suit filed by the opposite party no. 1 against the defendant-applicant and the opposite party No. 2 for a declaration that the opposite party No. 2 is the wife of opposite party No. 1. The defendant applicant is the father of the defendant opposite party No. 2. It was alleged in the plaint that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 was celebrated on 15-12-75 before an idol in the presence of some witnesses. In para 2 of the plaint it was alleged that after the marriage the parties executed an agreement of their own free will and consent thereby declaring that they had become husband and wife. An application for injunction was given by the plaintiff whereby it was prayed that the defendant No. 1 be restrained from marrying again and her father be also restrained from marrying his daughter to any other man. 2. THE trial court, by its order dated 13-5-1977, rejected that application for the reasons that the plaintiff had prima facie failed to establish his marriage and the balance of convenience was not in his favour. It was also held that no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff in case the interim injunction was not allowed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against that order. The appeal was decided by the District Judge Allahabad, vide his order dated 6-8-77. The order of the trial court was confirmed. The learned District Judge has observed: "THE manner of marriage alleged in the plaint clearly shows that it was not a valid marriage." It was also observed that if for a moment it was assumed that a valid marriage had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and if the defendant No. 1 contracted another marriage the other marriage is valid in law. 3. THEREAFTER an application for the amendment of the plaint was given by the plaintiff opposite party No. 1. It was stated in this application that certain typing mistakes had occurred in paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of the plaint. In paragraph 1 it was sought to add that the marriage had taken place in accordance with the custom prevailing amongst the Hindus and further 'Saptpadi' ceremony had taken place. It was stated in this application that certain typing mistakes had occurred in paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of the plaint. In paragraph 1 it was sought to add that the marriage had taken place in accordance with the custom prevailing amongst the Hindus and further 'Saptpadi' ceremony had taken place. In paragraph 3 it was sought to add that after the marriage the parties lived as husband and wife according to their religions. Similar amendment was sought in para 5 of the plaint. An objection was raised to this application on behalf of the defendants. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the entire case inasmuch as the plaintiff wanted to introduce a different form of marriage than what had been alleged in the plaint originally. Thus, he should not be allowed to change the nature of the case. It was also alleged that the application was not bona fide. 4. THE trial court, by its order dated 8-10-77 allowed the application for amendment on payment of some costs. Against this order the present revision application has been filed. It was submitted before me on behalf of the defendant applicant that the proposed amendment was not bonafide but was mala fide inasmuch as the omission of the words now introduced in the plaint could not be as a result of any typing error. It was only after the injunction application had been rejected by the trial court and that order had been confirmed by the appellate court and a view had been taken that the applicant had prima facie failed to establish that any marriage had taken place, that this application was given. It was urged that the basis of the suit was being changed inasmuch as the form of marriage now alleged was entirely different from that stated in the plaint originally. 5. MY attention has been invited to a Division Bench decision of this Court in U. P. Government through Collector Allahabad v. J. R. Bhatta, AIR 1956 Allahabad 439. In that case a suit was instituted on 2-1-1947 to declare the order inflicting on the plaintiff the compulsory retirement from public service as illegal. 5. MY attention has been invited to a Division Bench decision of this Court in U. P. Government through Collector Allahabad v. J. R. Bhatta, AIR 1956 Allahabad 439. In that case a suit was instituted on 2-1-1947 to declare the order inflicting on the plaintiff the compulsory retirement from public service as illegal. An application for amendment of the plaint was filed at the appellate stage on 23-11-54 asking for additional relief to recover arrears of salary on the ground that until decision of State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, AIR 1954 SC 245 no Government servant could sue for arrears of salary. It was held by this court that it was not correct to say that it was only as a result of the decision of the Supreme court in the State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (supra) that the rule of English law as to a civil servant not being entitled to maintain a suit against the State for recovery of arrears of salary was negatived for the first time in India. Even the decision in State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (Supra) had been published long before the application for amendment which was made at the fag end of the argument. The ground for amendment, therefore, could not be said to be bona fide. 6. IT was also observed that since the facts and figures contained in the relief sought to be added were not there in the plaint and any adjudication in respect of them would require evidence, the relief could not be granted under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. It was thus submitted that the order passed by the court below was beyond jurisdiction and hence liable to be set aside. 7. ON behalf of the plaintiff opposite party it was urged that the basis of the suit even after the proposed amendment remained the factum of marriage only details of the marriage were sought to be included in the plaint and that would not amount to a change in the cause of action or nature of the suit. I am not inclined to accept this submission because the amendment now sought introduces a different form of marriage than was urged in the plaint. I am not inclined to accept this submission because the amendment now sought introduces a different form of marriage than was urged in the plaint. In my opinion one of the basic tests before allowing an amendment application is as to whether the evidence required to prove the case after the amendment would be in any way different from the evidence required to prove the case taken in the plaint as originally constituted. As has been stated above what was stated in the plaint originally was that marriage took place between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 on 15th December, 1975 and the form of marriage was that before some idol and in the presence of some witnesses. Vermilion was offered by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1. In para. 2 it was alleged that both the parties married of their own free will and executed an agreement whereby they acknowledged each other to be husband and wife. Now the plaintiff seeks to introduce that the marriage was celebrated according to the rites as presecribed in Hindu religion and Saptpadi took place before the Idol. In my opinion the nature of evidence which would be required to prove the case after the proposed amendment would be entirely different from the evidence it would have been required before the plaint had been amended. Further it cannot be said that the cause of action has not been changed. 8. THERE is another aspect and it is that this application cannot be regarded as bona fide. The learned trial court rejected the application for amendment and observed that prima facie the plaintiff had failed to establish the marriage. Immediately after that finding if the case of the plaintiff was that certain allegations had been omitted as a result of typing mistake, the same should have been incorporated with the permission of the court, but that was not done. On the other hand against that order an appeal was filed and the appellate court as well observed that the "manner of marriage alleged in the plaint clearly shows that it was not a valid marriage. It was only after that this application was given. On the other hand against that order an appeal was filed and the appellate court as well observed that the "manner of marriage alleged in the plaint clearly shows that it was not a valid marriage. It was only after that this application was given. The application was, therefore, the outcome of the decision on the interim injunction proceedings and not due to any omission in the plaint as a result of any typing mistake." In view of the foregoing discussion the revision application is allowed and the amendment application is rejected. The applicant will get his costs from opposite party No. 1. Revision allowed.