AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishnan, J.—I think the amendment was properly allowed in this case. There is nothing to show that the claim based on the original debt is barred by limitation. That is a matter to be decided in the suit. If it is barred, the suit will no doubt be dismissed. There is no reason why a claim for money due based on the original loan or dealings should not be combined with a claim for the same money as due under a pro-note; in case there is any difficulty in enforcing the note, the party is entitled to fall back on the original consideration. See Duggempudi Nagamma v. Tirumala Reddi 12 L.W. 147. The two causes of action in such a case are not so distinct as the claim which their lordships of the Privy Council were dealing with in Ma Shwe Mya v. Mating Mo Hnaung : (1921) M.W.N. 396 : 4 U.B.R. (1921) 30 : 30 M.L.T. 28 : 24 Bom. L.R. 682 : AIR (1922) (P.C.) 249 . Their Lordships'' language has to be dealing with. The civil revision petition fails anrl is dismissed with costs.