Abdur Rahman, J.

1. This is a revision against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam dismissing a suit of small cause on the grounds that the promissory note Which formed the basis of the suit was not sufficiently stamped and the application made by the fourth defendant to be transposed as a plaintiff and seeking permission to continue the suit on the original cause of action was not maintainable. The suit as framed was certainly based on the promissory note; but-either as a matter of history as to how the promissory note came into existence or with the object of disclosing as to how the cause of action had accrued, it was stated in paras. 3 and 4 of the plaint that there were prior dealings between the parties and the last promissory note on which the suit was based, was only executed in renewal of a prior promissory note of 1930.

2. The only questions that have been debated before me, are whether the application made by the fourth defendant for transposition should not have been allowed and whether the fourth defendant should not have been permitted to continue the suit on the basis of the original cause of action as the promissory note which formed the basis of