Short Note : 1. The short facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 201 and interest and notice charges, on the basis of a promisory note, as Karta of the joint Hindu Family. In the body of the plaint, it was described as Sanyukta Hindu Pariwarik Firm Manohar Singh Rajendra Kumar, Neemuch Cantt, through Rajendra Kumar s/o Kesrimal as Karta of that firm and this fact has been specifically mentioned in the body of the plaint. 2. It appears from the record of the trial Court that the defendant was served who put in his appearance through his counsel. But he did not file any written statement nor apparently took any objection that the suit in the present form in the name and style, as mentioned by this plaintiff, was not maintainable in law. 3. The learned Judge has dismissed the suit on the short ground that as the suit has been filed on behalf of the Joint Hindu Family Firm and in the name of the Joint Hindu Family Firm, the suit is not maintainable. Hence this revision. Held : What is contemplated by Order 30, rule 1, CPC., is that two or more persons under a firm may sue without mentioning the names of the individuals. That is not the case where the plaint describes the plaintiff himself, as has been described in the present case. The plaint is signed by Rajendra Kumar and the plaintiff cannot therefore, be deemed to be suing in the firm's name but in his own name and the mere fact of the firm's name being mentioned in no way affects the matter. 4. Besides, Order 30, CPC., does not apply to the business of a joint Hindu family. If in the plaint of a suit the plaintiffs were described as "firm X, through Y", this was nothing more than Y bringing an action on behalf of X. In these circumstances, it was not a case in which a joint Hindu family sued in a firm's name. If all the there is any defect, it is really one of form and did not have the effect of non-suiting the plaintiff on that ground alone. If all the there is any defect, it is really one of form and did not have the effect of non-suiting the plaintiff on that ground alone. If the learned Judge thought that the frame of the suit was defective, he would have done better by giving the plaintiff an opportunity, by putting his clear intention in the order, to amend the plaint. Such procedure is provided for in Order 1 rule 10, CPC, where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff. Besides, Order 6, rule 17, CPC., also provides for allowing alteration or amendment of pleadings at any stage which may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties (See (Firm) Mohanlal v. (Firm) Udai Ram, AIR 1936 Patna 140, Firm Murlidhar v. Firm Kishorelal, AIR 1960 Rajasthan 296; and Lakhan Sao v. Firm Kani Ram, AIR 1938 Patna 270). 5. In view of this legal position and in the light of these decisions, I find that the learned Small Cause Judge has erred in law in dismissing the plaintiff's suit without affording him any opportunity to amend his plaint. AIR 1936 Patna 140, AIR 1960 Rajasthan 296 and AIR 1938, Patna 270, relied on. Revision allowed. Case remanded.