In Sio Koon Lin v S.B Mehra (supra), it was held as follows– If as at October 7, the respondent had no right of action to claim for the $35,000, it is clear that any amendment would be to introduce a new cause of action which did not exist at the date of the writ and if the leave of the court is necessary, it would be refused: Eshelby v Federated European Bank [1932] 1 KB 254; [1932] 1 KB 423 CA. But as noted, the amendment was made without any requirement for leave and before delivery of the statement of defence. A subsequent application by the appellants to strike out the amendment on the ground that no leave was given for it was, after argument in open court, dismissed. With this order of court, the pleadings must be read as amended. If the effect of the amendment was to determine the cause of action as at the date of the amendment, that is, on October 14, 1972, the respondent would be clearly entitled to $35,000, an instalment due and owing. And if not, but the cause of action was to be determined at the date of the writ, then he would not be. On the authority of Sneade v Wotherton, etc Co [1904] 1 KB 295 in which Collins M.R. held at page 297 “the writ as amended becomes the origin of the action and the claim there on indorsed is substituted for the claim originally indorsed” the amendment dated back to the date of the original issue of the writ and the action continued as though the amendment had been inserted from the beginning. (Emphasis added)