JUDGMENT

Baguley, J - This appeal arises out of a suit on mortgages. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed suit No. 8 of 1926 of the District Court of Pyinmana in which he alleges that the first five defendants are the representatives of one Nurdin, now deceased, that Nurdin executed three mortgages in favour of D Meik and Maung Min Din, and that U Meik and Maung Min Din assigned the mortgages to him and he therefore sues as assignee. Ma Ngwe and Naung Mya Tha were joined as subsequent transferees of some of the lands. There are certain allegations of payments and so on. When the case came up for hearing the plaintiff stated that he was unable to find the deed of assignment so he asked for permission to withdraw the suit with leave to file a fresh suit. The District Court only gave leave to file a fresh suit with regard to one of the mortgages, but on appeal to this Court the following order was passed:

We give the appellant leave to withdraw the suit as a whole with permission to file a fresh suit on the mortgages.

2. As a result of this permission the plaintiff filed a suit out of which this appeal arises. He did not then file the suit as he had proposed to file it, viz., as heir of U Meik, but he stated that since the dismissal of the former suit ho had discovered the missing deed of assignment, so he filed the suit practically on the same terms as the one which he had originally filed. Objection was taken to the deed of assignment because it was not registered. It became clear that the deed of assignment being unregistered was bad, so the plaintiff asked for permission to amend his plaint in order that he might sue as heir of U Meik joining U Meik's legal representatives as defendants because they did not wish to join as plaintiffs. The learned District Judge held that permission could not be granted. The plaintiff did not ask for permission to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit so the suit was dismissed with costs. Hence the present appeal. For the appellant reliance was placed mainly on Hughes v. The Pump House Hotel Co. Ltd. (No. 3) (1902) 2 K.B. 485. This is a decision by the Court of appeal in a case in which the facts were as follows: Hughes had done work for the defendant company and sued to recover the amount alleged to be due to him under the contract. Objection was raised that Hughes was no longer interested in the contract because he had assigned absolutely any debt arising under it to Lloyd's Bank. Hughes contended that his transfer did not amount to an absolute assignment but was a charge only. The trial Court held that the assignment was by way of charge only. The Court of appeal held that the assignment was an absolute one, whereupon an application was made by Lloyd's Bank to be substituted as plaintiffs in place of Hughes. A Master made an order to that effect. This order was appealed against the Court of Appeal and permission was given to Lloyd's. Bank to be substituted as plaintiffs. The decision is one under Order 16, Rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court the wording of which is for practical purposes the same as the wording of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C. A Privy Council ruling on the same point is to be found in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 249 the relevant portion of the headnote of which is as follows:

All rules of Court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice, and it is therefore essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exeroised, but none the less no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change, by means of amendment, the subject matter of the suit.

3. For the respondents it is urged that to allow the amendment now asked for would be to substitute one cause of action for another. Reliance is placed upon the definition of "cause of action," originally gi