Jackson, J.

1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif of Turaiyur allowing plaintiff to amend the plaint in O.S. No. 627 of 1929.

2. Plaintiff sued as endorsee of a promissory note. The note was alleged by defendant to be void as infringing the Paper Currency Act. Plaintiff then obtained an assignment of the original obligation, and applied to add that cause of action to his plaint. This was allowed, and hence the petition. It is conceded by petitioner that if plaintiff were payee there would be no objection to his suing on the original obligation: cf. Miyan Bux v. Bodhiya 115 Ind. Cas. 630 : 50 A. 839 : 26 A.L.J. 729 : A.I.R. 1928 All. 371 : Ind. Rul. (1929) All. 404. But it is contended that the endorsee has not the same privilege. On the other hand, it is maintained that the endorsee is an assignee of the actionable claim, who can sue on the debt evidenced by the note. There is no absolutely direct authority, but in the light of Muhammad Khumarali v. Ranga Rao 24 M. 654 and Nataraja Naicken v. Ayyasami Pillai 38 Ind. Cas. 339 : 32 M.L.J. 354 : 5 L.W. 410 : (1917) M.W.N. 230 : 21 M.L.T. 405 this plea is at least arguable and if it is arguable there is n