Short Note : 1. Plaintiff-non applicant had instituted a suit on 18-11-1977 for recovery of loan of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 1,000 by way of interest. The suit was based on original transaction of giving and taking of the loan on 28th June 1976. It was also alleged in the plaint that the Hundi was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in order to supply evidence of the aforesaid transaction of loan on 28th June 1976. There was an averment in the plaint that the suit was brought under Order 37 in summary procedure. On 12-1-1978 an amendment application was submitted by the plaintiff-non-applicant seeking leave to amend the plaint by deletion of reference to Order 37 and addition in cause of action-clause of the words that the suit was also based on original transaction of loan, which was allowed by the trial Court. Held : A plaintiff may institute suit specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of Order 37 at his option either as a summary suit or as a suit in the ordinary manner. A suit not falling within the aforesaid classes of suits cannot be instituted as a summary suit and tried in summary procedure. The present suit is based initially on the original cause of action i.e. the transaction of giving and taking of the loan on 28-6-1976. It is also stated in the plaint that by way of evidence of the transaction of loan Hundi was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appears to have so framed the suit apprehending that his claim may not fall on account of the Hundi in question being on insufficient stamp. A suit like the present one cannot be regarded to fall within the classes of suits triable in summary procedure. The applicability of procedure for trial of the suit depends upon class of suit and not on option of the party. The plaintiff cannot ask a suit not falling under Order 37, rule 1 (2) to be tried as a summary suit. This is exactly the position in the present case. Therefore, even if the plaintiff would pot have applied for deletion of reference to Order 37 from the plaint the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try it as a summary suit i.e. in summary procedure prescribed by Order 37. This is exactly the position in the present case. Therefore, even if the plaintiff would pot have applied for deletion of reference to Order 37 from the plaint the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try it as a summary suit i.e. in summary procedure prescribed by Order 37. In this view of the matter, deletion of reference to Order 37 is perfectly justified. A suit falling in classes of suits specified by Order 37, rule 1 (2) CPC can be filed at the option of the plaintiff either as a summary suit or as a suit in the ordinary manner. Having filed the suit once as a summary suit, there is no prohibition in the Civil Procedure Code to the effect that the plaintiff will not be allowed to give up the benefit of the procedure under Order 37 and request for trial of the suit in the ordinary manner, The option which the plaintiff has in the matter does not get exhausted by its initially exercise. The plaintiff can later on request for the suit being tried in ordinary manner. At the best, on such a change of option, the plaintiff may be saddled with costs, if any, occasioned up to that point of time, but the defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to get the suit tried as a summary suit only. 2. The trial Court had power to grant leave to amend and has exercised that power. Order 6, rule 17 applied to the case and its extension to Order 37 has nowhere been prohibited. If the plaintiff has choice of taking advantage of summary procedure under Order 37, he has also the liberty of not claiming the benefit of that procedure. An analysis of Order 37 reveals that in rules 2 to 6 certain restrictions are imposed of right of the defendant to defendo Rule 7 of Order 37 provides that save as provided by this Order (Order 37) the procedure in suits hereunder shall be the same as procedure in suits instituted in the ordinary manner. Therefore, what happens by deletion of the reference to Order 37 from the plaint is that the right of the defendant to defend the suit becomes unfettered. The restrictions of his right to defend imposed by the various rules of Order 37 also disappear. Therefore, what happens by deletion of the reference to Order 37 from the plaint is that the right of the defendant to defend the suit becomes unfettered. The restrictions of his right to defend imposed by the various rules of Order 37 also disappear. Therefore the defendant cannot have any grievance if the plaintiff seeks deletion of the reference of Order 37 from the plaint. There is no question of taking away of any right vested in the defendant by lapse of time. The amendment sought is within three years of the institution of the suit. Formerly, under Article 5 of Schedule 1 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908, a summary suit had to be brought within one year from the date on which the debt becomes due but now there is no such period of limitation for such suits under the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 A suit falling in classes of suits under Order 37, rule 1 (2) may be instituted either as a summary suit or a suit in the ordinary manner within the same period of limitation i.e. three years. Thus there can be no prejudice to a defendant if a plaintiff is granted leave to make amendment in question. Revision dismissed.