JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan, J. - This, is an application u/s 115 of the CPC and arises out of the following facts. 2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit For recovery of a certain sum of money which was decreed. The suit was filed on the last day of limitation. The plaintiff was described in the plaint as 15 years old and the suit was filed by him through his father acting as the next friend. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was a minor and urged that the plaint was not properly presented as the plaintiff was a major. On 27th October, 1937, the Honorary Munsif who decided the case recorded the statements of the Counsel for parties. The defendant's Counsel urged that the suit was liable to dismissal because the plaintiff was a major at the time of the institution of the suit and ought to have filed the suit as such and not through his next friend The plaintiff's Counsel replied that the plaintiff was by mistake entered as minor instead of major and the mistake Was discovered after the suit had been filed. The plaintiff's Counsel prayed that the mistake may be corrected as the plaintiff was already on the record and no new plaintiff was being added. After recording the statements of the Counsel for parties the Court did not record any order until 2nd November, 1937, when it passed the following order which may be translated thus there seems to be no reason why the plaintiff should be harassed without any reason and as under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. the amendment asked for can be made by the Court it is therefore ordered that the plaint be amended. 3. The suit then proceeded to trial on the merits and as has been already stated it was decreed. The defendant filed an appeal and challenged the power of the Court to allow the amendment and contended that the suit should have been dismissed as time barred as it had been filed on the last day of limitation. The lower appellate Court relying on the authority of certain decisions upheld the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said decision defendant has preferred the present application in the revision. 4. The lower appellate Court relying on the authority of certain decisions upheld the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said decision defendant has preferred the present application in the revision. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides at some length and I am of opinion that there is no substance in the plea raised on behalf of the defendant. Under Order 1, Rule 10, of the CPC the Court has got ample power to correct the error if it is satisfied that the mistake is a bona fide one. That the mistake was made in good faith is amply demonstrated by the fact that the plaintiff's Counsel immediately asked the Court to correct the error as soon as it was discovered by him that the plaintiff had been wrongly described as a minor in the plaint. The defendant's learned Counsel points out that before filing the suit the plaintiff had sent the defendant a notice and this notice was not sent through his next friend. The learned Counsel wants me to draw the inference that the notice must be presumed to have been sent by the plaintiff as a major and consequently there could be no reason for him to describe himself as a minor at the time of filing the plaint. I have seen the notice in question. It is addressed by the plaintiff personally but it does not describe whether he was a major or a minor. In any case it seems to me that the fact that the notice was not rent through the next friend does not prove that plaintiff was actuated by any bad faith in describing himself as minor. There could be no motive on the par of the plaintiff for deliberately mis-describing himself as a minor when he clearly knew that the suit was being filed on the last day of limitation. It must, therefore be held that the lower Court was quite justified in ordering the amendment in the plaint 5. There could be no motive on the par of the plaintiff for deliberately mis-describing himself as a minor when he clearly knew that the suit was being filed on the last day of limitation. It must, therefore be held that the lower Court was quite justified in ordering the amendment in the plaint 5. It has been held by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Taqui Jan minor by him mother Banu Begum v. Obaidulla alias Nanhe Nawab (1894) 21 Cal 866, that- when a suit is instituted by a person alleging himself to be a minor, and the suit is brought through a next friend, and when it is found the plaintiff was not at the date of the institution of the suit in fact a minor, the Court should not dismiss the suit as the defendant can be fully indemnified by the payment of his costs In such a case the proper remedy is for the defendant to apply to have the plaint taken off the file or amended and if it be not amended the next friend's name may be treated as mere surplus age and the suit be allowed to proceed. 6. In Bhulai v. Sheo Balak (1902) 5 O.C 355, it was held that there it was found that the plaintiff was not a minor and the suit was instituted with his knowledge and under his authority the plaint could be amended by the Court. This case was followed in Gajraj Singh v. Raghubar (1904) 7 OC 234 by Mr. Chamier the then Additional Judicial Commissioner. He held that where the plaintiff described as a minor was cognizant of and approved of the institution of the suit and went with the next friend to instruct the pleader who drew up the plaint and it was proved that be was not a minor it was a mere irregularity which could be cured by amendment of the plaint and removal of the name of the next friend and the suit could not be dismissed on that ground. At page 236 of the report he went so far as to observe that- even if the plaintiff is not shown to have authorised the institution of the suit the mistake does not amount to anything more than an irregularity. 7. At page 236 of the report he went so far as to observe that- even if the plaintiff is not shown to have authorised the institution of the suit the mistake does not amount to anything more than an irregularity. 7. Similar view has been expressed in Shanmuga Chetty v. C.K. Narayana Aiyar AIR 1918 Mad 916; Dattu v. Bhaoosingh AIR 1926 Nag. 40; AIR 1926 82 (Lahore) and AIR 1932 322 (Lahore) . On behalf of the applicant reliance has been placed on Ruhul Amin v. Skankar Lal (1923) 45 All. 701 : AIR 1924 All. 54 in support of the contention that the suit should have been dismissed. The facts of that case are distinguishable. It appears that although a petition was presented on behalf of the plaintiff of that case after attaining majority to the Court to be allowed to prosecute the suit in his own name and not through his next friend the Court never disposed of that application and the suit went on to trial under a defective plaint. No question arose in that case whether the Court had of had not the power to allow amendment of the plaint if asked to do so by the plaintiff. 8. I am, therefore, of opinion that there is a consensus of authority in support of the view that the Court in such circumstances should order amendment of the plaint and not dismiss the suit. 9. Section 22 of the Limitation Act has no application to the present case inasmuch as no new plaintiff was added after the institution of the suit. On the other hand the plaintiff was already on the record and continued to remain on the record and the only effect of the prayer for amendment was that his age was corrected by the order of the Court and he was allowed to sue without the intervention of the next friend. 10. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.