Short Note : 1. The trial Court had decreed the suit but the First Appellate Court had dismissed the suit holding it as time-barred. Held : It is not disputed that originally the suit filed against one Chhogalal. The suit was filed on 8-7-1969. It is also not in dispute that the various commodities sent by the plaintiff to the defendants shop were sold, the last date being 7-1-1967. It is also not in dispute that Chhogalal was not a person inexistence on the date on which the suit was filed. In fact, Chhogalal died long before and that fact is not in dispute. On 10-4-1970 an application under Order 6, rule 17 was filed wherein it was alleged that the defendant Chhogalal be deleted and in his place the defendant be described as firm Chhogalal Ramniwas and the partners 1 to 5 stated in the application be joined as defendants. It was contended that it was a case of correction of the description of the defendant and what was sought by the amendment was merely a correction of the mis-description. But as stated above it is not disputed that originally the defendant describe in the plaint was a person who admittedly died long before the suit was filed and therefore the plaint was filed against a dead person. By this amendment for the first time on 10th April, 1970 was sought to implead the Firm with partners as defendants. It is well it settled that where one defendant is substituted by another an amendment application substituting the new defendant could not be allowed if on the date the amendment is sought the suit is barred by limitation In the present case originally the suit was filed against a person who was not in existence, and therefore amendment for the first time the present defendant firm was introduced and for this purpose therefore the suit will have to be considered as having been filed on the date the amendment application was made so far as the present defendant is concerned. And admittedly, from the date of the last transaction, that is 7-1-1967, the suit filed on 10-4-1970 when the amendment was sought would be barred by time. M/s Vyas Automobiles v. M/s. Central India Motors and Others, 1959 JLJ 73 , relied on Purushottam v. M/s. Manilal and Sons, AIR 1961 SC 325 , distinguished. Appeal dismissed.