The Presumption of interpretation against drafting of Agreement is also known as Contra Proferentem Principle. It is a doctrine that states that how ambiguous clauses of a contract should be interpreted. The aim of interpretation of contract is to ascertain and discovered the intention of the parties with which they had entered into contract. If a word in a contract is not defined in a contract, the word should be interpreted in ordinary, literal and plain meaning. It places the cost of losses to the parties who was in the best position to avoid the harm.

It is applicable only when the interpretations are sound, reasonable and there is no contrary interpretation being adopted on the principle is prima facie evident in the contractual document. Contra Proferentem has been increased with the rise of contract. Contract of adhesion involves strict take it or leave it basis giving no opportunity to party to bargain over specific terms. The phrase "Contra Proferentem" in latin translates "against the offeror" which can be further interpreted as "guilt of the drafter". It is known for placing fault on the party who created an ambiguous clause or requested that it can be included.

Evolution:
In Bank of India & Anr vs K.MohanDas the Supreme Court held that if the terms applied by one party are unclear than the interpretation against the party is preferred. (Verba Chartarum Fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem). The Court stated that contract must be read as whole and intention of the parties must be ascertained from the language considering the object of the contract and the real intention of the parties needs to be brought out and the words of each clause should be interpreted to bring harmony with other provisions.

The bank who was responsible to formulate the scheme in the contractual scheme that the optees for voluntary retirement under that scheme will be eligible to get pension under Pension Regulations 1995 and therefore they bear the risk of clarity. In Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Ltd vs New India Assurance Co Ltd 22nd August, 2016.

The Supreme Court held that contract to be contra proferentes in cases of real ambiguity. Court held that one must not use the rule to create an ambiguity, one must find the ambiguity first. When a clause by itself is ambiguous, if by looking at the whole policy its meaning is clear there is no room for the application of the doctrine. The assured cannot put his own meaning upon a policy but when it is ambiguous it should be construed in the sense in which he might have reasonably understood.

In United Insurance Company Ltd vs Orient Treasures (P) Ltd (2016) 3 SCC 49 The Supreme Court in the said judgment held that in the absence of any ambiguity the respondent is not entitled to invoke the principle underlined in the rule of contra proferentem for interpreting the clauses of the policy. Where a policy is produced by the insurers, it is their business to see that precision and clarity are attained and if they fail to do so, the ambiguity will be resolved by adopting the construction favourable to the insured. The Contra Proferentem rule becomes operative when the words are truly ambiguous and it cannot be invoked for creating a doubt and the words are free from ambiguity in the sense that fairly and reasonably construed.

In United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S. Pushpalaya Printers on 25 February, 2004 the Supreme Court held that where the words of a document are ambiguous, they shall be construed against the party who prepared the document. It is also settled position if there is any document or term is capable of possible two interpretations one beneficial to the insured to be accepted consistent for which policy is taken, namely to cover the risk on the happening of certain event. In "Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sony Cheriyan" 1999 (6) SCC 451 the Supreme Court held that contract should be read as whole.

Opinion:
In furtherance of viewpoint expressed through judgments, it is opinionated that if there is absurdity or ambiguity in a contract instead of construing against the party who prepared the document, one should follow the approach of harmonious construction so that both the parties get benefit from such contract and if at all the contract is ambiguous or the specific clause is ambiguous, one should resort to alternative remedy such as bringing amendment to the agreement and if there is need to incorporate new clause to alter the previous clause, the addendum agreement can be helpful. One can also resolve their grievances or disputes through Mediation, Arbitration and Conciliation. If the disputes are not settled through alternative disputes resolution, one can approach and file suit for civil nature to get the appropriate relief.

Exceptions:
In "Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd vs Garg Sons International" it was held that doctrine of contra proferentem would not apply to commercial contracts which are mutually and bilaterally agreed upon. In " SK Jain vs State of Haryana & Anr" held that principle of contra proferentem does not apply to commercial contracts. In "National Insurance Company Ltd vs Chief Electoral Officer" rule of contra proferentem does not apply in case of commercial contract for the reason that commercial contract is bilateral and has been mutually agreed upon.

Conclusion:
The Party should negotiate the contract and read the terms and conditions wisely to avoid unwanted litigation and avoid hassles of the Court. The Party should keep copy of the proceedings and evidence to prove the genuineness of the case. Every detail of the Contract should be discussed meticulously. A contract cannot be made if it disadvantageous to another. The doctrine of contra- proferentem gives an added responsibility to framer's checkers and to keep the check and balances.