BABURAM Vs. OCHHELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order of the Civil Judge 1st Class Bhind granting leave to the Plaintiff -non -applicant to amend his plaint. On 10 -4 -1952 the Plaintiff brought a suit to recover Rs. 3400/ - the amount of principal and Rs. 56/8/ - interest thereon from the Defendant -applicants upon a Hundi dated 24 -12 -1951. It was said in the plaint that the Defendants who were the owners of the firm Baldeo Prasad Ajudhya Prasad borrowed Rs. 3400/ - from the Plaintiff and to secure repayment drew and accepted in their favour a Hundi payable sixty days after 24 -12 -1951. The Hundi was dishonoured and the Plaintiff accordingly instituted' a suit out of which this revision -petition arises, claiming the amount due upon the Hundi with interest.

(2.) MR . Shivdayal learned Counsel for the applicants objected to the leave granted by the learned Judge firstly on the ground that the effect of the amendment was to introduce a totally new and inconsistent cause of action and secondly that the claim on the original consideration was at the date of the suit itself and the date of the amendment barred by limitation. I think the learned Civil Judge was right in permitting the Plaintiff to amend his plaint and sue on the original consideration. The question raised in this revision petition is whether the lower Court was right in allowing the amendment in order to enable the Plaintiff to change the basis of his suit and sue on the original consideration.

(3.) THESE observations show that in cases such (sic) the present one the Plaintiff is entitled to claim (sic) the footing of the original consideration. The (sic) of action on a Hundi is no doubt distinct, from the cause of action on the loan which gave (sic) to the Hundi. But if the Plaintiff could have (sic) sued in the alternative upon the original consideration, it is difficult to see why he should not be allowed to amend his plaint so as to base (sic) suit only on the original consideration. This (sic) finds support in the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in ' : AIR 1933 Bom 476 (A)' (sic) which has been relied upon by the lower Court.