JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a revision directed against order dated 2nd February, 1978 whereby amendment in the cause title has been permitted to be amended with respect to the description of the defendant. ( 2. ) FACTS essential for decision of this revision are that in the plaint the defendant was described as under : "ramanand Kishanlal, aged 60 years resident of 110, Lodhipura, Indore". The trial Court non-suited the plaintiff on the ground1 that Ramanand kishanlal, aged 60 years- was already dead" before the institution of the suit and as such plaint was void having been instituted against a dead man.- This led" to the filing of an appeal by the plaintiff-non-applicant. During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff reiterated his submission reagarding: amendment of the description of the defendant. This prayer found favour with the appellate Court and the appellate has directed substitution of the name of Kishanlal s/o Ramanand, resident of 110, Lodhipura, Indore and remanded the case for trial in accordance with law. Aggrieved with this remand order the present revision has been filed, ( 3. ) IN this revision Shri R. R. Waghmare, learned counsel for the defendant-applicant contended that the suit having been instituted against a dead person no substitution could be ordered as has been directed by learned addl. District Judge. Reliance has been placed on the ratio of C. Muttu v. Bharath Match Works (AIR 1964 Mysore 293) and Jogindar Singh v. Krishan Lal (A I R 1977 Punjab 180), Shri P. M. Bafana, learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-applicant argued in support of the impugned order and contended that there is no difference between- a suit filed in the name of a dead defendant and one filed in the name of a wrong, person as defendant. Reliance is placed on the ratio of Karimullah Khan v. Bhanu Pratap Singh (AIR 1938 Nagpur 458) and Rangrao Vyankatesh Deshpande v. Kashinath dhoudu (1946 N L J 492 = A I R 1947 Nagpur 73 ). ( 4. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties I have reached the conclusion that the revision deserves to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the ratio of Karimullah Khan v. Bhanu Pratap Singh (AIR 1938 Nagpur 458) and Rangrao Vyankatesh Deshpande v. Kashinath dhoudu (1946 N L J 492 = A I R 1947 Nagpur 73 ). ( 4. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties I have reached the conclusion that the revision deserves to be dismissed. Niyogi, J. has in karimullah Khan v. Bhanu Pratap Singh {supra) has expressed himself on the point thus : "order 1, Rule 10 only contemplates that a suit should have been filed in the name of a wrong person irrespective of whether he is living or a dead person. There is no difference between a suit filed in the name of a dead plaintiff and one filed in the name of a wrong person as plaintiff. The suit filed in the name of a dead plaintiff is manifestly one which is filed in the name of a wrong plaintiff. Hence the case comes within the ambit of O. 1, R. 10 C. P. C. and defect is capable of being cured if the mistake is shown to have occurred in good faith, provided that in permitting the amendment no injustice results to the defendant". Similar is the view of this Court in Rangrao v. Kashinath (svpra ). The ratio of the aforesaid cases can be usefully extended and applied to the case of institution of a suit against a defendant who is dead at the time of the institution of the suit. ( 5. ) THE Punjab and Mysore cases relied on by Shri R. R. Waghmare, no doubt, take a contrary view, but reliance on the ratio of cases from other high Courts cannot be permitted in preference to the cases of this Court. Moreover the Nagpur view has not at all been taken into consideration in the Punjab and Mysore cases. Nothing has been pointed out to me which may persuade me to take a view contrary to that taken by Niyogi J. in the aforesaid Nagpur cases. ( 6. ) SO far as the question of bona fides is concerned, the learned A. D. J. has held that Ramanand Kishanlal is trade name of the defendant. As such it is a case of wrong description of the defendant. This mistake has been shown to have occurred in good faith. Moreover the suit Hundi is dated 19 8-76. ( 6. ) SO far as the question of bona fides is concerned, the learned A. D. J. has held that Ramanand Kishanlal is trade name of the defendant. As such it is a case of wrong description of the defendant. This mistake has been shown to have occurred in good faith. Moreover the suit Hundi is dated 19 8-76. Limitation for such suits is three years. Accordingly no injustice will result to the defendant on account of the amendment in the description of the defendant as permitted by the learned A. D. J. ( 7. ) IN this view of the matter the revision fails and it is hereby dismissed. The impugned order is confirmed. However, in the view of the nature of controversy, no order as to costs.