Pandrang Row, J.
1. The petitioner's suit which was based on a promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant on 1st September 1927, was filed on 26th August 1930, and dismissed on 13th August 1931, on the ground that the note was not genuine. That finding cannot, and is not attacked in revision. The only point urged before me is that the District Munsif acted erroneously in the exercise of his jurisdiction in refusing to allow the petitioner to amend the-plaint on his application dated 25th June 1931. This application was made with a view to base the cause of action on the loan itself, and the District Munsif dismissed it on 27th July 1931 on the ground that the allowing of the amendment would take away from, the defendant the legal right which accrued to him by lapse of time, and that there were no special circumstances in the case which outweighed this. After hearing full arguments on this point from the learned advocate for the petitioner, I remain unconvinced that the District Munsif acted erroneously in the exercise of his jurisdiction, or even in the exorcise of his discretion in dismissing the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint. That application was made not only long after the claim had become barred by limitation, but also long after the trial of the suit was over. The trial of the suit, which is a small cause suit, was not begun till 23rd March 1931, and was completed on 4th May 1931, after several adjournments and a piece-meal examination of the witnesses. On 4th May 1931, judgment was reserved, and judgment was not pronounced till 13th August 1931, i.e., till more than three months after. It was during this interval and apparently owing to the reopening of the case by the District Munsif on 22nd June 1931 and posting of the case for arguments to 25th June 1931, on the question whether plaintiff can be given a decrees on the plaint as it stands in case it is found that the suit note was not executed by the defendant,that the petitioner made his application for amendment of the plaint on 25th June 1931. In other words it was only after the petitioner had a hint, and a broad hint too, from the Court that the only question on which the trial of the suit proceeded, viz., whether the note sued on was genuine, was likely to be decided against him that he applied for amendment of the plaint. It is quite clear from the plaint that the loan and the execution of the note were contemporaneous, the allegation in the plaint being that the defendant borrowed Rs. 200 from the plaintiff and executed a note for this amount both the loan and the execution of the note being on 1st September 1927. The evidence during the trial on the plaintiff's side was to the effect that immediately after the money was paid to the defendant, the latter took out the suit promissory note from his pocket and delivered it to the plaintiff. Then again the plaint allowed that the cause of action arose in Narukallapadu village; according to the plaintiff's case during the trial both the loan as well as the delivery of the note took place in Amaravathi. In substance the new case which the petitioner sought to establish by getting the plaint amended was that he was induced to part with Rs. 200 by the deceit practiced by the defendant, the deceit having been discovered only after the Court likely to find that the note was not genuine. As the District Munsif observed in his judgment, if the defendant practiced any deceit on the plaintiff the plaintiff could seek whatever remedy was available to him by another suit, but could get no relief in this suit itself. A suit on a promissory note cannot be converted, and that too long after the trial was over into a suit based on fraud or deceit.
I see therefore no reason to interfere in revision in this case. The petition is dismissed with costs.