JUDGMENT

Din Mohammad, J. - This appeal has arisen in the following circumstances: On 1st October 1936 a suit was instituted on behalf of Megh Raj as proprietor of the Firm Ganesha Mal Megh Raj, through L. Kundan Lal, against the Firm Raghbar Das Beni Parshad, through Beni Parshad. The claim was described in the following terms: "For recovery of Rs. 9815 principal and interest on the basis of bahi account and other oral and documentary evidence' of all sorts." In para. 1 of the plaint it was stated that the plaintiff firm was a joint Hindu family firm carrying on business in Ambala city. In para. 2 of the plaint it was said that the defendant firm borrowed money from the plaintiff firm on bahi account and promissory note on various occasions commencing from the year 1929. In para. 3 reference was made to a certain draft executed by the defendant in which he admitted his liability to the extent of Rs. 9000 to the plaintiff firm. This petition of plaint was signed by Kundan Lal, mentioned above as mukhtar khas (special attorney). The defendant firm put in a. written statement on 10th November 1936, in which, along with the pleas on facts, certain preliminary objections to the drafting of the plaint were also raised. It was contended inter alia that inasmuch as it was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff firm was a joint Hindu family firm, the suit should have been instituted in the name of the firm and not in that of Megh Raj. It was also pleaded that the suit could not be instituted "through the special agent of Megh Raj." It was further urged that no details had been given in the plaint as to the date from which the account commenced and the date up to which it continued, nor of the amounts advanced and the amounts repaid; nor had any transliteration of the bahi entries been attached to the plaint. On 4th December 1936 the plaintiff put in a reply to these objections stating that the suit could proceed in the form in which it was instituted and that it could be instituted through the special agent.

2. The Senior Subordinate Judge being otherwise busy on that date, adjourned the case to 20th January 1937; and on that date an order was made that inasmuch as in para. 2 of the plaint it had not been clearly stated how much money was borrowed on the promissory note, how much on bahi account and between which periods, the plaintiff should submit a properly amended plaint. In pursuance of this order, the plaintiff put in an amended plaint on 28th January 1937. In the column of claim it was reiterated that the suit was for recovery of Rs. 9815 principal and interest on the basis of bahi account and other oral and documentary evidence of every kind. In para. 2 of the amended plaint it was said that the firm Ganesha Mal Megh Raj was a joint Hindu family firm of which Megh Raj and his minor son Gian Chand were members. In paras. 3 to 7 the details of the accounts commencing from 17th April 1929 and ending on 23rd June 1932 were mentioned and reference was also made to an agreement, dated 24th July 1932, wherein the defendant had admitted his liability to the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 12,600. The remaining paragraphs of the amended plaint merely repeated what had already been said in the original plaint. This plaint was signed by Megh Raj as proprietor of the Firm Ganesha Mal Megh Raj. To this amended plaint, further pleas were submitted by the defendant on 9th February 1937 and it was urged inter alia that the plaint had not been amended in accordance with the directions of the Court and that the amendments made had changed the nature of the suit as originally instituted and this was not permissible under the law. On the pleadings of the parties the Senior Subordinate Judge framed the following issues:

1. Has the amendment of the plaint been made in accordance with the orders of the Court? 2. Does not amendment made in the plaint change the nature of the suit as originally filed and if so, what is its effect? 3. Can the suit procee