WANCHOO, C.J.—This is a revision by Patramdas and arises in the following circumstances.

2. Mangal Chand opposite party filed a suit against Patramdas applicant for recovery of Rs. 8,500/- principal and Rs. 2,295/- interest on the basis of a hundi dated 19th February, 1948. Patramdas defendant resisted the suit and raised a number of pleas on which a number of issues were framed. Two of these issues were however, taken up for consideration by the trial court as preliminary issues and were these:—

(1) Whether the suit was time barred?

(2) Whether the hundi was on insufficiently stamp-paper and as such inadmissible in evidence?

The question of limitation was decided against the defendant while the question of insufficiency of stamp was decided in his favour. On the latter decision, the plaintiff prayed for amendment of the plaint in order that he might fall back on the original cause of action and this amendment was allowed on payment of Rs. 40/- as costs. The present revision is against the order holding the suit time barred and allowing the amendment.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the opposite party, viz., that the question of limitation as well as the question whether amendment should or should not have been allowed can be raised under sec. 105 C. P. C. in appeal from the decree which may be finally passed in the suit and as such, in view of the decision of this Court in Purohit Swarupnarain vs. Gopinath (1) (1953 R.L.W. 629.) this revision is not entertain able.

4. Mr. Chandmal who appears for the applicant admits that so far as the question of limitation is concerned, it can be raised under sec. 105 C.P.C. in appeal from the decree which might be finally passed; but he contends that the question of amendment cannot be raised under sec. 105 C.P.C. and, therefore, the revision is entertain able so far as the question of amendment of plaint is concerned. He relied on observations in Pyar Chand vs. Dungar Singh (2) (1952 R.L.W. 342.) in this connection in which the case of Gambhirmal vs. Gyanchand (3) (A.I.R. 1950 Raj. 20.) was discussed. Gambhirmals case was decided by Bapna J. sitting singly and at page 358 in Pyar Chands case Bapna. J took the view that any amendment of a plaint which purported to make out an entirely new case by substituting one cause of action for another could be taken in revision and his reasoning was this : "If the case would have been allowed to proceed on the amended plaint and decision adverse to the defendant had been given, he could not have challenged it under sec. 105 of the Code as it could not be said that the order of amendment affected the decision of the case as ultimately placed before the lower court on the merits". That case was considered by the Chief Justice also who was another member of that Bench and he was doubtful of the position and made the following observations:— "It is enough for present purposes to say that in the extra-ordinary circumstances of the case, where one plaint was practically substituted for another, it may not be possible to raise the point as a ground of appeal under sec.105".

5. It may be mentioned that the question whether an order allowing amendment of a plaint can be challenged under sec. 105 C.P.C. was not exactly in point in that case and was not argued at length before that Bench, though it had dealt with the effect of that decision while considering the point actually involved in that case. We have now heard learned counsel at length on the question whether an order allowing or refusing amendment of a plaint can be challenged under sec. 105 and have come to the conclusion that it can be so challenged for the reasons which we shall state presently.

6. The relevant portion of sec. 105 C.P.C, reads as follow: —

"Where a decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity in any order, affecting the decision of the case, may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal."

7. It is well settled that the words affecti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document