JUDGMENT B.C. Chakraborti, J: This revisional application is directed against an order dated August 12, 1978 passed in Money Suit No. 20 of 1976 of the 1st Court of Subordinate Judge at Alipore. 2. Facts relevant for the present purposes are not in dispute. The Opposite Party, Bata Shoe Co. Private Ltd, instituted Money Suit No. 537 of 1971 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta an October 29. 1971 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 31,484.28 for loss of goods entrusted to the petitioner for carriage. The petitioner entered appearance, filed a written statement and contended inter alia that the said Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On the objection so taken, an issue was framed and was eventually decided in favour of the defendant petitioner. The learned Judge having found that it lacked territorial jurisdiction• to try the suit by his order dated July 1, 1976 directed the plaint to be returned for being presented to the proper Court under Order VII Rule 10 of tile Civil Procedure Code. Thereupon the plaint was refilled in the 1st Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore and was numbered as Money Suit No. 20 of 1976. 3. While the suit was proceeding in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, on the prayer of the defendant petitioner, (be plaintiff Opposite Party was directed to discover on oath all its documents relating to the suit by April, 5, 1977. The plaintiff failed to comply with the order even on the dates extended by the Court for the purpose whereupon the defendant petitioner prayed for dismissal of the suit under the provisions of Order XI Rule 21(1) of the Code. 4. On August 29, 1977 the plaintiff opposite party filed their objection to the defendant’s petition and also filed another application for amendment of the Cause title of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the said application for amendment, the plaintiff-opposite party alleged that by a Resolution of the share holders of the company, passed on 7.4.1973, the plaintiff company was converted into a public company, that the change of the name of the company to “Bata India Ltd.” was approved by the Central Government and that a fresh certificate of corporation was issued on 29.4.1979 consequent upon such change of name and pursuant to S.23(1) of the Companies Act. On such averments, the plaintiff prayed for amendment of the cause title of the plaint by inserting “Bate India Ltd.” in place of “Bate Shoe Company Private Ltd.”. The other amendments prayed for were merely incidental. 5. The application of the defendant-petitioner under Order XI Rule 21 (i) and the application for amendment of the plaint were heard together and disposed of by the impugned order. The learned Judge allowed the prayer for amendment and declined to dismiss the suit as the plaintiff had in the mean time made the discovery. In allowing the application for amendment, the learned Judge observed that in view of S. 23(1) of the Companies Act the suit should be allowed to proceed in the new name of the company and that the amendment would neither change the character of the suit nor cause any prejudice to the defendant. This is the order under challenge before us. Although by the said order, the learned Judge disposed of two applications-one by the defendant-petitioner and the other by the plaintiff-opposite party, Mr. Sen appearing in support of the Rule challenged only that part of the order by which the amendment of the plaint was allowed. 6. The only point urged by Mr. Sen is that "Bata Shoe Company Private Limited' having ceased to exist prior to the institution of the suit, S. 23(3) of the Companies Act had no application and could not be so continued as to permit the newly incorporated company to continue the improperly constituted suit brought by the company in its former name. In fine, the contention of Mr. Sen is that by the amendment, a new plaintiff is appearing in place of one who had no legal competence to institute the suit in 1976 and that this cannot be permitted in law. 7. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff-opposite party on the other hand contends that the amendment does not seek to substitute one plaintiff for another but only seeks to correct a misdescription so far as the name of the company is concerned. 8. For a proper appreciation of the rival contention it may be useful to bear in mind the provisions of S 23 of the Companies Act. 8. For a proper appreciation of the rival contention it may be useful to bear in mind the provisions of S 23 of the Companies Act. It reads as follows: "23(1) where a company changes its name in pursuance of S. 21 or 22, the Registrar shall enter the new name on the register in place of the former name, and shall issue a fresh certificate of incorporation with the necessary alterations embodied therein; and the change of name shall be complete and effective only on the issue of such a certificate (2) The Registrar shall also make necessary alteration in the memorandum of association of the company. (3) The change of name shall not effect any rights of obligations of the company, or render defective any legal proceedings by or against it: and any legal proceeding which might have been continued or commenced by or against the company by its former name may be continued by or against the company by its new name" 9. To recapitulate the facts once again it may be recalled that the name of the company was "Bata Shoe Company Private Ltd." when the suit in the City Civil Court was instituted in 1971. The Resolution changing the name was passed on 7.4.1973 and the certificate of incorporation was issued on 23.4.1973. The plaint after being returned by the City Civil Court was presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore in July, 1976. The application for amendment Was made on August 29, 1977. 10. Had the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint while it was pending in the City Civil Court, there could be nothing to resist such a prayer. Now the question is whether after the issuance of certificate of incorporation in the new name in 1973, the suit could be competently filed in 1976 by its old name and whether such a plaint could at all be amended? Mr. Sen argues that the suit itself being incompetent, at its inception, the amendment ought not to have been allowed. 11. In support of this contention Mr. Sen relied on a bench decision of this Court in the case of M/s Malthali Tea Syndicate Ltd. v, Revenue Office, Jalpaiguri (A 1973 Cal. p 78). Mr. Sen argues that the suit itself being incompetent, at its inception, the amendment ought not to have been allowed. 11. In support of this contention Mr. Sen relied on a bench decision of this Court in the case of M/s Malthali Tea Syndicate Ltd. v, Revenue Office, Jalpaiguri (A 1973 Cal. p 78). In that case it was held that nothing in sub-s. (3) of S. 23 of the: Companies Act authorises the company to commence a legal proceedings in its former name at a time when it had acquired its new name which has been put on the Register of Joint Stock Companies. Hence the appeal filed by the company in its former name was found to be incompetent. 12. Another case. Mudi Vanaspati Manufacturing Co. v. Katihar Jute Mills (A 1969 Cal 496) was referred to by Mr. Sen. It was observed in that case that a company being a legal entity could sue and be sued only in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that to allow a limited company to be sued in the business name would be an inroad upon the Code in the sense that a suit would be competent against the defendant which had no legal basis and no legal character. 13. The ratio of those decisions is that a suit by or against a company in its former name is not competent in the sense that a company may sue or be sued only in the name entered in the Register of Joint Stock Companies and in accordance with the provisions of order 29 of the Code. The question whether a proceeding wrongly instituted in the former name of the company really amounts to a merely misdescription so far as the name is concerned and therefore liable to be corrected was never considered in any of these decisions. The decisions do not indicate that such prayes were made but rejected. 14. The other case referred to Kalipada Sinha v. Mahalaxmi Bank Ltd. L.A. 1966 Cal. 595) is not really of any assistance. There the property of an order for amendment of an execution petition by bringing in the new name of the company was called in question. The decisions do not indicate that such prayes were made but rejected. 14. The other case referred to Kalipada Sinha v. Mahalaxmi Bank Ltd. L.A. 1966 Cal. 595) is not really of any assistance. There the property of an order for amendment of an execution petition by bringing in the new name of the company was called in question. There the alternation in the name took place during the pendency of the proceedings and it was held that the amendment could be allowed even at the stage of execution. The facts there were different in the sense that the alteration in the name took place during the pendency of the proceeding and the Case squarely came within the meaning of S. 23(3) of the Companies Act. 15. It has been indicated already that had the plaintiff prayed for amendment of the plaint while it was pending in the City Civil Court no complications could possibly arise. But it is contended by Mr. Sen and we think rightly that the same considerations would not apply to the suit that was subsequently filed in the Alipore Court. This is so because the presentation of a plaint in pursuance of an order passed under Order VII Rule 10 C.P. Code cannot be said to be continuation of the suit as instituted in the wrong Court which had no jurisdiction to entertain it (Amar Chand v. Union of India. A 1973 SC 3/3). 16. Therefore the point that falls for our consideration is whether the filing of the plaint in the old name was a mere misdescription and if so whether the misdescription can be corrected by way of amendment. It seems to us that this is not a case where the suit has been instituted by a non-existent person but one filed by an existing party though wrongly described. In the case of Amulakchand v. Babulal (A 1933 Bombay 304) a similar question arose for determination. There the suit was instituted by Amulakchand Mewaram, a firm of merchants. Subsequently it was appreciated that the firm was not a partnership firm but is the name of a joint Hindu family and it was proposed to amend the plaint by substituting the names of the members of the joint family in place of the name of the family firm. Subsequently it was appreciated that the firm was not a partnership firm but is the name of a joint Hindu family and it was proposed to amend the plaint by substituting the names of the members of the joint family in place of the name of the family firm. In view however of the reluctance of the plaintiff to agree to pay costs to the defendant consequent upon such amendment, the matter was not ultimately proceeded with. In appeal, the plaintiff asked for leave to amend and the prayer was allowed upon a finding that the firm in whose name the suit was originally brought did not correctly describe the existing persons. 17. In the case of Venkata Ramaiya v. T. Ramaswani, (A 1964 Sc 818). A question arose whether a suit instituted by a Receiver could be amended by indication in the cause title that the real plaintiff was the firm which was suing through him, and it was held that it was a case of misdescription merely and could be corrected by amendment. 18. The principle is thus well steeled that where a person has been misdescribed in the cause title, the error can be received by properly describing the person. In this case, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Sen that the amendment of the plaint really amounted to substitution of one person for a non-existent person. The change of name of the company does not really affect a change in the identity of the company. In the case of Kalipada V. Mahalaxmi Bank Ltd. (supra) it was observed that S.21 of the Companies Act enables a company to change its name but does not provide for altering the entity of the company. Consequently it follows that a change of the name does not necessarily indicate a change of identity. The entity of the company is not effected by the change of the name merely. A company may be identified Dot merely by its correct name but by other characteristics at well. In the case of F. Goldsmith. Ltd. v. Baxter (1969) 3 All. The entity of the company is not effected by the change of the name merely. A company may be identified Dot merely by its correct name but by other characteristics at well. In the case of F. Goldsmith. Ltd. v. Baxter (1969) 3 All. E R. 733 it observed "I would find it impossible to hold that a company incorporated under the Companies Act has no identity but by reference to its correct name.....................................A limited company has in my judgment characteristics other than its name by reference to which it can be identified: fur example a particular business particular place or places where it carries on business, particular share holders and particular directors. "If judged by these tests a company is correctly identifiable. a mere error in the name would be inconsequential and would not render a suit instituted by such a company in a wrong name entirely incompetent, in the instant case before us there is no difficulty in identifying the company. The reference to the company by its former name, namely "Bata Shoe Company Private Ltd. was a mere misdescription and should be allowed to be corrected by way of amendment. In such a case no question of limitation arises. No prejudice also can it cause to the defendant. 19. Strictly this is not a Case coming under S. 23(3) of the Companies Act for that section contemplates a change of the name during the pendency of a proceeding. Here the change in name did not take place while the suit, namely Money Suit No. 20 of 1976 was pending the change took place prior to the institution of the suit by the company by its former name. Since the change in the name did not affect the identity or entity of the company itself, we hold that it was merely a case of error in the description of the company when it sued by its former name. In that view of the matter we find no grounds to interfere with the order allowing the prayer for amendment. The revisional application accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. The rule is discharged. There shall be no order for costs. Anil K. Sen J: I agree Rule discharged.