PALLUCHAMY Vs. SHERIFABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is absent and she is placed exparte.

(2.) This petition is field by the petitioner against the order dated 5.8.1975 passed on an application made by him on 28.3.1973 in original Suit No. 108 of 1973 on the file of the IV Addl. First Munsiff, Bangalore. The petitioner instituted the said suit against the respondent for recovery of certain amount relying upon a promissory note executed by the respondent on 14 10.1972. On 28.3. 1973 he made the application referred to above requesting the Court to permit him to amend the plaint into one based on the original consideration. It was within three years from the date on which the money was advanced by him to the respondent. The learned Munsiff who heard the above application dismissed the said application on the ground that the amendment if allowed would alter the nature of the Suit. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

(3.) The application for amendment was made within three years from the date on which the plaintiff alleged that he had advanced the amount to the respondent. The question of limitation did not arise for consideration. It is not correct to hold that, whenever a suit for recovery of money which is originally based on a promissory note is sought to be altered into one based on the original consideration, the nature of the suit would be altered. The suit even after such amendment being allowed would continue to be one for recovery of money advanced. The allegations made by the plaintiff in such a case that the lending of the money and the execution of the pronote were independent events may be true or may not be true. The determination of that question would however arise only after the amendment is allowed and evidence is recorded. The Court cannot determine that question merely on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint and the application for amendment, when it is possible for the plaintiff to establish that the two events referred to above were independent events by adducing evidence. The lower court was in error in rejecting the application for amendment on the ground that the nature of the suit would be altered if the amendment was allowed.