Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XXX, rr. 1 and 10 & S. 153

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-----   ------- O. XXX, rr. 1 and 10 & S. 153-Person trading under another name can be sued but cannot sue in that name-Misdescription or error in designating party in plaint-May be corrected provided mistake is bona fide -Amendment does not involve substitution or addition of party Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 22 (1).   A person trading in an assumed or trading name may be sued in his trading name under Order XXX, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1903 but he cannot sue in that name.. If, how ever, a party is imperfectly or incorrectly designated in 4 plaint the correction of the error is not the addition or substitution of a party but it merely clarifies and makes apparent what was previously shrouded in obscurity by reason of the error or mistake. The question in such a case is one of intention of the party and if the Court is able to discover the person or persons intending to sue or whenever intended to be sued a mere misdescription of such party can always be corrected provided the mistake was bona fide. Such an amendment does not involve the addition of a party so as to attract section 22(1) of the Limitation Act 1908.   Where, therefore, a person sued describing himself as "Ismail Haji Sulaiman, a proprietary firm" instead of "Ismail Haji Sulai man, a proprietor of the firm" and from the evidence on record it appeared that the plaintiff intended to sue in his name and not in the name of the firm the necessary amendment was allowed and it was held that the amendment would not attract the operation of section 22 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1908.   Mura Mohideen v. 'V.O.A. Mohamed and others A I R 1955 Mad. 294 rel.   Neogi Ghose & Co. v. Sardar Nehal Singh and another 35 C W N 432 and Bhagvan Manaji Marwadi and others v. Hiraji Premaji Marwadi A I R 1932 Bom. 516 ref.   JUDGMENT   HASAN, J.-This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff who instituted a suit for realisation of a certain sum of money as dama ges and also for non-delivery of six cases of goods mentioned in the plaint.   His case, in short, is as follows : 362 cases of `bright arm…