CHELLAM SAKKA RAJA Vs. MUTHUSAMI MOOPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be decided is, whether the learned Judge in permitting the amendment has infringed any principle of law or of procedure governing the point.

(2.) The facts may be briefly stated. The suit was filed on a promissory note dated 29 June, 1931. In the list of documents filed with the plaint seven previous promissory notes were mentioned. The dates and the amounts for which the notes were executed were set forth and the documents themselves were filed with the plaint.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement, while admitting the genuineness of the previous notes, denied that he executed the suit promissory note. He further pleaded that the note on which the suit was based, being one payable to the plaintiff or bearer on demand, contravened the provisions of the Indian Paper Currency Act, 1923 and was therefore unenforceable. There was a further defence raised which related to.the plaintiff's right to sue, but for the purpose of my judgment that plea is not relevant.