RAMPRASAD SHIVLAL Vs. SHRINIVAS BALMUKUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed this suit to recover the sum of Rs. 15,000 claimed to be due on three hundis drawn by the defendants on one Chhotaram Javer in Bombay payable to Shah which were handed over to the plaintiff. Various objections were raised in the written statement, one of which regarding the non-cancellation of the stamps on two of the hundis was successful. The other objections were disallowed, and the Judge passed a decree against the defendant on the third hundi for Rs. 5,000.

(2.) The same objections have been raised before us. The first objection was that the suit was time-barred The defendants in the plaint were described as "Shivlal Rampranad a firm doing business as merchants at Ahmedabad," and thereafter, when it was discovered that Shivlal Ramprasad was a joint Hindu family doing business under that name, and that the provisions of Order XXX (Civil Procedure Code) would not apply when defendants were members of an undivided Hindu family, the title of the plaint was amended by substituting the names of the members of the family for the firm's name " Shivlal Kainpraead."

(3.) It was then contended that the provisions of Section 22 (1) of the Indian Limitation Act applied, and that the suit was barred, as the suit must be deemed to have been instituted against the defendants when the plaint was amended. The learned Judge considered, on a review of the authorities, that there was not an addition of parties, but only a substitution in order to correct a misdescription, We need only say that we agree with that finding.