Plaintiff is the petitioner. He filed a suit for recovery of money. In the plaint be stated that on 1st April, 1966 the defendant borrowed from him Rs. 2,000. The defendant gave a chit stating that he had received Rs. 2,000. In the evening it is alleged by the plaintiff that a promissory note was executed by the defendant for Rs. 2,000. On 27th March, 1969 the plaintiff went to the house of the defendant and asked for the money or for an endorsement on the promissory note. It is stated that the defendant’s son took the promissory note and tore it to pieces. In the plaint the relief that was sought for wasthe recovery of Rs. 2,000 which had been received by the defendant on executionof the chit. In the column relating to the cause of action it is stated that thecause of action arose on the date when the defendant executed the chit for Rs.2,000 and in the evening when he executed a promissory note. In the amendedplaint the plaintiff sought to introduce a relief based on the promissory notewhich the defendant’s son tore on 27th March, 1969.

2. It may be seen that in the original plaint itself all the facts have been stated to enable the plaintiff to seek his relief on the promis