HAZARI VITTAL Vs. DHONDI EMKI RAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision in a civil case. The learned Munsif of the Armoor Taluk, Nazamabad District, by order dated 31st October 1950 directed that the plaint should be amended. This revision is against that order. I have heard the arguments of the learned advocates of the parties and record my opinion, below.

(2.) THE plaint in its original form clearly stated that the defendant urged by necessity requested the plaintiff for a loan of Rs. 447/ -and the loan was advanced after a promissory note was executed on 12th May 1950. The amendment now sought is that no money was advanced on that date but that there was a course of dealings between the parties and that on the above -mentioned date, 12th May 1950 accounts were stated and checked and the promissory note was executed in respect of the balance that was found due from the defendant to the plaintiff. Question is whether the amendment in such circumstances allowed by the trial Court should be maintained or not.