1. The claim here was for the recovery of money stated to have been lent to the first defendant (the father of the second and third defendants) by the fourth defendant who was the plaintiff's agent at Singapore. As the first defendant had prior to the suit denied that any loan had been made to him by the fourth defendant, and as the 4th defendant maintained that the loan was, in truth, made, the latter was impleaded and relief against him prayed for in the alternative in respect of the sum stated to have been lent. We agree with the contention on behalf of the appellant that Section 28, C. P. C, warrants such alternative claims being made, the matter in respect of which the claim is made being the same within the meaning of the section. Muthappa Chetty v. Muthu Palani Chetty I.L.R.(1903) M. 80 is distinguishable. In that case, the matter of dissolution of partnership with which the 3rd defendant was concerned was distinct from and unconnected with the claim for. damages in regard to which alone the 1st defendant was sought to be made answerable. See Buddree Doss v. Hoaremilles & Co. I.L.R.(1881) C. 170, and Rajudhur Chowdhry v. Kalikristna Buttacharya (1882) Ibid 963, Madan Mohun Lal v. Holloway I.L.R.(1886) 12 C. 555, Hondurus Railway Co. v. Tucker L.R. Ex. D. 301, Child v. Stenning L.R. 5 Ch. D. 695 and Bernets and Co. v. McIboraith & Co. (1886) L.R.2 Q.B. 464.
2. We must, therefore, set-aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and the proceedings which have since taken place in pursuance thereof and direct that the suit be proceeded with on the plaint as it originally stood and disposed of according to law. The costs will be provided for in the decree.