Pandrang Row, J.
1. The petitioner's suit which was based, on a promissory-note said to have been executed by the defendant on September 1, 1927, was filed on August 26, 1930, and dismissed on August 13, 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 June 25, 1931. This application was made with a view to base the cause of action in the loan itself, and the District Munsif dismissed it on July 27, 1931, on the ground that the allowance 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 Munsjf acted erroneously in the exercise of his jurisdiction, or even in the exercise 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 March 23, 1931, and was completed on May 4, 1931, after several adjournments and a piece-meal examination of the witnesses. On May '4, 1931, judgment was reserved, and judgment was not pronounced till' August 13, 1931, i.e., till more than three months after. It was during this interval, and apparently owing to the re-opening of the cape by the District Munsif on June 22, 1931, and posting of the case for arguments to June 25, 1931, on the question whether plaintiff can be given 'a decree 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 June 25, 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 was quite clear from the plaint that the loan and the execution of the note were contemporaneous, the allegation in the plaints 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 September 1, 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 alleged 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 Amaravati. 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 which heard the suit was known to be lively to find that the note was not genuine. As the District Munsif observed in his judgment if the defendant practised any deceit on the plaintiff, the plaintiff could seek whatever remedy 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.
2. I see, therefore, no reason to interfere in revision in this case. The petition is dismissed with costs.