Amendments to a plaint are permissible to clarify original causes of action, provided they do not inflict injustice to the opposing party.

1 The revision petitioner is the defendant in O. S. No. 124 of 1956 of the Alleppey Sub-Court. The suit as originally framed was tor recovery of the money due under two bundles for Rs, 9600A each executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff's brother George Kuruvila and endorsed by the latter to the plaintiff. The defendant contended inter alia that the suit was not maintainable since the bundles which were insufficiently stamped were not admissible in evidence.
A preliminary issue was raised on this contention and after hearing both sides it was held that the suit was not maintainable as the claim based on insufficiently stamped hundies could not be enforced in a Court of law. Though it was further contended that the only course open to the Court was to dismiss the suit as the plaintiff who was an endorsee of the hundies was not entitled to fall back upon any cause of action based upon the Original debt, the Court held that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend the plaint if he so chose and seek appropriate reliefs on the basis of such amendment. Two weeks' time was allowed for applying for the amendment; That application was opposed by the defendant. This revision is against the order allowing the amended plaint to be filed.

2 The relevant allegations in the amended plaint are made in paras 4 to 10. The gist of the allegations is that the defendant approached the plaintiff in 1946 for helping him with money for floating a company by name "The Marine Industries" and undertook to associate the plaintiffs brother George Kuruvilla in the management o the company and on that representation the plaintiff advanced Rs. 19,200/- to the defendant through his brother George Kuruvilla.
The defendant failed to act according to the representation and made use of the money not in furtherance of the floatation of the company, but for his own personal needs. On the plaintiff repeatedly pressing for the money he was finally told on 28-2-1949 that as the business undertaking could not be got through the amount advanced would be repaid within 90 days. It was to secure the above debt that the two hundies were executed in George Kuruvilla's name by the defendant.
Since the money as borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the same from the defendant with interest. The cause of action for the suit is said to have been arisen on 28-6-1946 when the money was advanced and on 28-2-1949 and 31-5-1949 when the debt was acknowledged by the defendant in two letters.

3 The prayer for the amendment was opposed by the defendant on the following grounds:- (i) that it is not open to an endorsee of a negotiable instrument to base a claim on the original cause of action for the money and the amendment sought for changed the character of the suit, (ii) as the claim based on the original cause of action had already become barred it should not be allowed so as to deprive the defendant of the plea of limitation and (iii) that the prayer for amendment waa lacking in good faith as it was unduly delayed. These objections were overruled and the application was allowed on payment of Rs. 150/- as day costs to the defendant.

4 The only points urged before me are (i) that the amendment could not be allowed as the original plaint and the amended plaint are based on two distinct causes of action and it is not open for the plaintiff who brought the suit originally as endorsee of the hundies to base his claim on the original cause of action for the money, and (ii) that though under special circumstances amendment could be allowed even after the original claim had become barred, this is not a fit case for doing so because the fact that the suit was not maintainable as the hundies were insufficiently stamped was brought to the notice of the plaintiff as early as 4-12-1951 when the written statement was filed.

5 For evaluating the merits of these objections the allegations in the amended plaint regarding the circumstances