( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition filed by the defendant against order dated 27-11978 passed by the Fourth A. D. J. Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 26-B of 1977 whereby amendment of the plaint, by deleting reference to Order 37, C. P. C. and addition of words in cause of action clause to the effect that the suit is also "based on original transaction of loan, has been permitted.

( 2 ) THE facts as alleged are as follows: The plaintiff-non-applicant has instituted a suit on 18-11-1977 for recovery of loan of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- by way of interest. The suit is based on original transaction of giving and taking of the loan of 28th June, 1976. It is also alleged in the plaint that the Hundi was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in order to supply evidence of the aforesaid transaction of loan on 28th June, 1976. There is also an averment in the plaint that the suit is brought under Order 37 in summary procedure. On 12-1-1978 an amendment application was submitted by the plaintiff-non-applicant seeking leave to amend the plaint by deletion of reference to Order 37 and addition in cause of action clause of the words that the suit is also based on original transaction of loan.

( 3 ) THIS application was opposed by the defendant-applicant but has been allowed by the impugned order. Hence this revision.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-applicant in this revision is that by the impugned amendment summary suit is converted into an ordinary suit and that the amendment in cause of action clause was not necessary.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-applicant supported the impugned order and argued that the court had power to allow the amendment in question.

( 6 ) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for both the parties. I am of the, opinion, that the revision deserves to be dismissed.

( 7 ) A plaintiff may institute suit specified in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 37 at (his option either as a summary suit or as a suit in the ordinary manner. Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 1 of Order 37 specifies the following classes of suits which can be filed as summary suits :-

" (a) suits upon bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes; (b) suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt, or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest, arising. (i) on a written contract; or (ii) on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty; or (iii) on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only. "

( 8 ) A suit not falling within the afore-said classes of suits cannot be instituted as a summary suit and tried in summary procedure. As stated earlier, the present suit is based initially on the original cause of action i. e. the transaction of giving and taking of the loan on 28-6-1976. It is also stated in the plaint that by way of evidence of the transaction of loan, Hundi was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appears to have so framed the suit apprehending that in s claim may not fall on account of the Hundi in question being on insufficient stamp. A suit like the present one cannot be regarded to fall within the classes of suits triable in summary procedure. The applicability of procedure for trial of the suit depends upon class of suit and not on option of the party. The plaintiff cannot ask a suit not falling under Order 37, rule 2 (1) to be tried as a summary suit. This is exactly the position in the present case. Therefore, even if the plaintiff would not have applied for deletion of reference to Order 37 from the plaint, the trial court had no jurisdiction to try it as a summary suit i. e. in summary procedure prescribed by Order 37. In this view of the matter, deletion of reference to Order 37 is perfectly justified.

( 9 ) A suit falling in classes of suits Specified by