Amendment of plaint allowed where promissory note was pleaded as security, preserving proof of the original loan

A plaint may be amended to clarify that a suit rests on the original loan transaction rather than only on a promissory note where the pleadings show the note was executed as security or evidence of the loan. A promissory note may operate either as an absolute discharge of the debt or as conditional payment or collateral security; if it is not taken in full discharge, the original consideration does not merge in the instrument and may still be proved if the note becomes inadmissible or unproved. The amendment was properly allowed because it only put the real basis of the claim on record and did not decide the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint could be amended to clarify that the suit was based on the original loan transaction and not solely on the promissory note, and whether such amendment should be refused because the note was insufficiently stamped and Section 91 of the Evidence Act might exclude proof of the oral loan arrangement.

Analysis: A promissory note may operate either as absolute discharge of the underlying debt or merely as conditional payment or collateral security. Where it is not taken in complete discharge, the original loan transaction does not merge in the instrument, and if the instrument becomes inadmissible or cannot be proved, the original consideration may still be established. The plaint disclosed that the note was executed by way of security and in evidence of the loan, though the drafting was confused. Since a plaintiff could have framed alternative cases at the outset, amendment to put the real basis of the claim clearly on record could not be denied. Allowing the amendment did not determine the merits of the suit, which would still depend on the evidence as to the parties' agreement regarding the effect of the promissory note.

Conclusion: The amendment of the plaint was rightly allowed and the order refusing amendment was set aside.

---