G A SUNDARA AIYAR Vs. ARUMUGHAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I think the amendment was properly allowed in this case. There is nothing to show that the claim based on the original debt is barred by limitation. That is a matter to be decided in the suit. If it is barred the suit will no doubt be dismissed. There is no reason why a claim for money due, based on the original loan or dealings should not be combined with a claim for the same money as due under a pro-note in case there is any difficulty in enforcing the note, the party is entitled to fall back on the original consideration. See Dug-gempudi Nagamma V/s. Peda Venkatareddi (1920) 12 L.W. 147. The two causes of action in such a case are not so distinct as the claim which their Lordships of the Privy Council were dealing with in Ma Shwe Mya v. Mating Mo Hnaung (1921) I.L.R. 48 C 832. Their Lordships language has to be taken with the facts of the case they were dealing with. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs.