Dinoo Singh Roy v. Ishar Chandar Roy, Wym. Rep. II., 253. See further App. Cause of Action. In Suganchand Sheodas v. Mulchand, Bom. IX., 270, the cause of action against endorser of a hundi held to be the place where it was endorsed.

(i) A plaint bad on the face of it should not be admitted, nor amended. Amir Narayan v. Musst, Raghubansi Koer, S. W. R. V., 234.

A similar fate should overtake a plaint which contains a prayer that the defendant may be criminally prosecuted for perjury. Bishan Sahay Singh v. Bir Kishor Singh, S. W. R. VIII., 296. (j) An appeal lies from an order under this clause, sec. 588. (k) i. e., so as to afford ground for final decision upon the dispute, and prevent further litigation. (1) In Raja Sheoraj Singh v. Nur Khan, N.-W. P. 1875, p. 354, a Court was held to have acted wrongly in dismissing a suit simply because it considered an erroneous date had been assigned in the plaint as cause of action. The plaint should have been returned for amendment. So if a plaint do not show when the cause of action accrued, this may be a ground for rejecting the plaint, but not of itself for dismissing the suit as barred by limitation without taking evidence. Kalinath Shaw v. Rajee Blochun Mozoomdar, In. Jur. (N. S.) II. 343. Supplemental plaint correcting a mistake of 36 to 44 bigahs allowed to be filed in Raja Jai Mangal Singh v. Mahendro Narayan Singh S. W. R. II., 154, and not allowed in Chandar Shekhur Deb Roykat v. Uma Nath Surma, S. W. R. I., 278, after the Amin's report had been given in. Quaere-Are not supplemental plaints quite irregular?-ED.

Thus, when plaintiff wished to set up a fresh case where an issue

as to execution of document on which he relied went against him Narayani Dasi v. Nurohury Mohunt, Marsh 70, and where plaintiff, finding on evidence that defendant was an agent and without authority, wished to alter his plaint to make defendant liable for representing that he had authority, plaints were not allowed to be altered,

A plaintiff must be limited to the case put forward in his plaint, but he may put forward an alternative case; or, if the Court think he has rested his claim upon wrong grounds, from misinformation, ignorance of law or fact, mistake or misconstruction of documents, he may be allowed to amend his plaint, and state his case correctly. Lakshmi Bai v. Hari, Bom. IX,, 1. A Judge, in considering whether he should admit or reject a plaint, is wrong in referring to documents and facts not stated in, or annexed to, the plaint, nor ascertained by him by interrogation of the plaintiff, although such documents and facts may have been on record in other proceedings in his Court, In a plaint claiming damages for an unsuccessful criminal prosecution of the plaintiff by the first defendant, and sanctioned by the second defendant as a subordinate Judge, the plaintiff (though stating in the plaint that the second defendant" maliciously and without authority" sanctioned the prosecution, and that the Magistrate before whom it was brought held that there was no cause whatever for the charge,) did not allege in the plaint that the first defendant prosecuted him (plaintiff) maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause, or that the prosecution was sanctioned by the second defendant without reasonable or probable cause: Held that the plaint was properly rejected, and that there was no

good ground for allowing the plaint to be amended, the plaintiff having delayed the filing of it until the last day but one allowed by the law of limitation. Girdhari Lal Dhyal Das v. Jagarnath Girdhar Bhai, Bom. H. C. R. X., 182. In N.-W. P. Mussumat Jahan Bibi v. Sevak Ram and others, N.-W. P. R. F. B., 109, Agra, the widow of a deceased Muhammadan had alienated different portions of her husband's property to different persons, at different times, and by distinct conveyances. The other heirs brought a suit against the widow and one alienee to set aside the alienation of one portion of the property. On their bringing a suit against the widow and another alienee to set aside the alienation of another portion, it was held that each alienation constituted a separate cause of action. heir's cause of action against different alienees, who have acquired possession under alienation made at different times, and under different circumstances, was not one and the same, the question of right of succession to the deceased and widow's competency to alienation arising equally in both the cases notwithstanding. It was not obligatory on the heirs to make all the alienees parties to the first suit upon pain of forfeiting all future right of suit against them by reason of such omission.

The

In Vithu v. Narain Dabhalkar, Bom.

H. C. R. A. C., V. 30, a Hindu, whose share in an ancestral estate had been alienated by a co-proprietor to different persons, brought three suits simultaneously against the co-proprietor and the alienees to recover three distinct parcels of land: Held that the plaintiff had only one cause of action against the co-proprietor, and therefore ought to have brought one suit against

him, including all the alienees therein, or brought separate actions. against the alienees and caused the proceedings in these suits to be stayed till the suit against the co-proprietor was determined. In Samichettiv. Ammaniachy and thirty others, M. H. C. VII., 260., the plaintiff's father had died seventeen years before the suit was brought; and during his minority, his father's widows had alienated the whole estate, bit by bit, to as many as thirty-one different persons. The plaintiff brought a single suit, making the widows and the thirty-one alienees defendants. On this Mr. J. Holloway remarked as follows:

"The plaintiff claims his share of the family property. His cause of action, the right, is his relation to the family to which the property appertains, and on this right, if established, and if he is not otherwise barred from recovering, he will be entitled to the share wherever found. The fact that various persons during his minority have affected to purchase parcels of the property does not destroy the unity of his ground of action. It will lie upon those who so purchased, upon the establishment of his right, to show that the sales which they set up are binding upon him. There appears no objection whatever to the frame of the suit." In the subsequent case of Vasudeva Shaubaga v. Kuleadi Narnapai, &c., the same view was taken.

(m) Objections as to stamps or documents filed with the plaint should not be considered at this time, nor until they are offered in evidence, as the filing of a document does not make it evidence. Syad Irtaza Hussain v. Harra Parshad Singh S. W. R. VII., 241; so Tilton v. Gwyther, Bourke 276, where it was held that a paper referred to in a plaint is not part of a plaint.