JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a revision under Sec. 115 C. P. C. by Firm Bidhi Chand Prem Shanker and another, defendants against the order of the Munsif of Gyanpur allowing the amendment of the plaint and thereby changing the name of the plaintiff from Firm Bechai Ram Basdeo Prasad through one of the partners, Basdeo Prasad, to Basdeo Prasad, proprietor of the shop Bechai Ram Basdeo Prasad. In para. 1 of the plaint it was also not amended that Basdeo Prasad was the karta of the Joint Hindu family and joint family business was carried on in the shop of whose coparceners were Basdeo Prasad and his son, Gopal Das. 2. The learned advocates for the parties invited my attention to many decisions of the various High Courts and also of the Supreme Court. All these cases are distinguishable in facts; but the settled law can be taken to be that where the partners of a firm cannot sue in the name of the firm and even then the suit has been instituted in the name of the firm, the court can permit amendment of the plaint by substituting the names of the partners in place of the firm. This is what can be inferred from Purshottam Umedbhai and Co. v. M/s Manilal and Sons, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 325. 3. In view of the Bombay case of Amulakchand Mewaram v. Babulal Kanalal Taliwala, AIR 1933 Bombay 304. having been quoted with approval in the above Supreme Court case, it can also be laid down as a law that where the status of the firm had not been indicated in the plaint but the parties were aware that it was the firm of joint Hindu family amendment could be allowed by bringing on record the name of the karta of the family or the names of the proprietors of the firm. 4. In the instant case, however, the plaintiff had at the initial stage, alleged in clear words that the plaintiff firm was a registered partnership firm. As a result of the amendment the firm is said to be a joint family business firm with Basdeo Prasad as karta of the family. In case the plaintiff -had committed a bona fide mistake the amendment could be allowed under Or. VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. even after the expiry of the period of limitation. As a result of the amendment the firm is said to be a joint family business firm with Basdeo Prasad as karta of the family. In case the plaintiff -had committed a bona fide mistake the amendment could be allowed under Or. VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. even after the expiry of the period of limitation. The law on this point is also beyond controversy. As laid down in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 363, amendment can be allowed even after the expiry of the limitation of course, in a suitable case where the allowing of the amendment is necessary in the interest of justice. To permit amendment of the pleadings after the expiry of the period of limitation is naturally an exception and not a rule. 5. Where the exercise of discretion by the subordinate court cannot be said to be arbitrary, the exercise of discretion cannot be interfered with in revision. 6. In the instant case Basdeo Prasad has given an explanation for the mistake creeping in the plaint. He says that prior to the partition in the family the firm was a registered one but after the partition in the family he (Basdeo Prasad) started business in the name of Bechan Ram Basdeo Prasad and this firm belonged to his branch of the joint family. It can easily be that when questioned by his advocate, Basdeo Prasad gave out the history which it was not necessary to give and by inadvertence it was mentioned that it was a registered partnership firm. The mistake is thus not one which can be considered to be intentional or to have been committed with some mala fide intention. In the circumstances, the amendment could be allowed and, in any case, the order of the Munsif cannot be challenged in revision. 7. The revision is hereby dismissed. Costs on parties. Stay order is vacated. Revision dismissed.