Bapna (Actg.) C.J.—This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of money.

2. The respondent, Keshava Deo, instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City, against Bhanwarlal and Gangaram for the recovery of Rs 200l/-as principal and Rs. 40/- as interest, on the allegation defendant No. 1 Bhanwarlal had borrowed Rs.2001/- from the plaintiff on 16th February, 1949, and had executed a pro note for the same, but he failed to pay the amount when called upon to do so. The suit was instituted on 18th April, 1949. Defendant No. 2 was impleaded as being also liable on the pro-note, as defendant No. 1 was alleged to have borrowed the amount on behalf of himself and defendant No. 2.

3. Bhanwarlal did not participate in the trial but defendant No. 2 Gangaram denied all the allegations in the plaint, and raised an objection that the pronote was not admissible in evidence owing to insufficiency of stamp.

4. On 6th January, 1951, the plaintiff filed an application for permission to amend his plaint so as to convert his suit as on the original cause of action of the loan. The Civil Judge dismissed the application and dismissed the suit on the ground that the pro-note bei

Click Here to Read the rest of this document