( 1 ) THIS Revision is directed against the order dt. 28-3-1994 passed by the subordinate Judge, Mandanapalle in i. A. No. 734 of 1993 in O. S. No. 120 of 1979.

( 2 ) THE defendant No. 1 is the Revision petitioner. The first respondent-plaintiff filed the suit O. S. No. 120 of 1979 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 48,000. 00 from the first defendant stating that he purchased car from the second defendant for Rs. 35,000/ and brought it from Madras to madanapalle and effected repairs after repairs he sold the said car to the first defendant who agreed to purchase the same for Rs. 45,000. 00 and paid Rs. 1000. 00 in cash, and Rs. 14,000. 00 was adjusted for the value of Singer five thread over lock machine given by first defendant to plaintiff s factory and he issued a cheque for balance of rs. 30,000/- on 27-11-1976 and took delivery of the vehicle. As the defendant failed to pay the amount he instituted the present suit.

( 3 ) THE defendant filed written statement denying the transaction but he stated that he issued cheque in favour of Andhra garments, Industrial Estate, Madanapalle. He purchased the car from second defendant for a consideration of rs. 30,000/- duly executed a receipt on 15-1-1977 and delivered the car to the defendant.

( 4 ) WHILE so the first respondent-plaintiff filed I. A. No. 734 of 1993 in O. S. No. 120 of 1979 under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. for amendment of the plaint in the cause title stating that instead of firm s name the individual name is mentioned in the cause title. The same was opposed by the respondent stating that in the year 1979 itself he has taken plea that he has not issued any cheque in favour of the plaintiff and the cheque was issued in the name of andhra Garments. If instead of plaintiff, andhra Garments is substituted the entire character of the suit will be changed. Firm itself cannot file a suit at the belated stage basing on the promissory note and the claim of the firm is barred and the same cannot be allowed.

( 5 ) THE lower Court by the impugned judgment without going into the merits of the case allowed the application stating that the plaintiff-petitioner in LA. No. 734 of 1993 is a Managing partner of the firm called andhra Garments and the burden of proof of the firm and as well as the plaintiff lies on the plaintiff himself. The body of the plaint, the reliefs prayed for, the names of the parties remain as it is and amendment sought is only to answer a technical objection to decide the issue between the parties effectively and efficiently in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings amendment is liable to be allowed.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that admittedly the cheque was not issued in favour of the plaintiff T. Venkatramana Reddy and it was only issued in the name of Andhra garments, Madanapalle.

( 7 ) UNDER Section 78 of the Negotiable instruments Act it is only holder of the instrument alone entitled for payment and the holder is also defined under Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is as follows. "the holder of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque means any person entitled in his own name to the possession thereof and to receive or recover the amount due thereon from the parties thereto". In view of the same the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Even assuming that if the plaintiff is the managing Partner of Andhra Garments, the andhra Garments cannot institute a suit against the petitioner defendant at this belated stage. When the amendment is allowed it amounts to taking away the accrued right of the defendants under the law of limitation. Under such circumstances the lower Court is not justified in allowing the application. He further contended that there is no averment in the plaint that the transaction was between the Andhra garments and the defendant No. 1 for sale and purchase of the car and in the absence of any material on record the lower Cou