Sultan Singh ( 1 ) SMT. Harjit Kaur Bagga has been carrying on the business of hair dressing, make-up, massaging, manicuring etc. under the name and style of gala Beauty Parlour . Another firm by the name of gala Beauty Parlour was also started by the defendant at Roorkee. The present suit was instituted in the name of m/s. Gala Beauty Parlour through its proprietor Smt. Herjit Kaur Bagga for a prepetual injunction restraining the defendant from carrying on business under the name and style of gala Beauty Parlour . The business gala Beauty Parlour is owned by one person only and therefore it is not a firm. A firm consisting of a sole proprietor cannot bring a suit in the name of the firm but must sue in the name of the proprietor. The plaint is signed and verified by Smt. Harjit Kaur Bagga as proprietor of gala Beauty Parlour . The plaintiff has filed this application under order 6 rule 17 read with order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that under a bonafide mistake the plaintiff in the suit has been shown as gala Beauty Parlour through its proprietor Smt. Harjit Kaur Bagga . The plaintiff therefore, prays for amendment of the title so as to read: "smt. Harjit Kaur Bagga trading as Gala Beauty Parlour". The defendant has resisted this application on the ground that gala Beauty Parlour is not a legal entity and therefore no such suit is maintainable. This is correct that gala Beauty Parlour being a proprietorship firm is not a legal entity but it appears that it is a case of misdescription of the plaintiff. The plaint describes the plaintiff as gala Beauty Parlour through its proprietor Smt. Harjit Kaur Bagga . Smt. Harjit Kaur Bagga has been carrying on business in the name of Gala Beauty Parlour and therefore, she was competent to sue in her name as proprietor of the business. In Purushottam Umedbhai and Co. v. M/s. Manilal and Sons, a firm or partners doing business outside India filed a suit in India in the name of the firm. Under Order 30 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure two or more persons carrying on business in India may sue or be sued in the name of the firm. In Purushottam Umedbhai and Co. v. M/s. Manilal and Sons, a firm or partners doing business outside India filed a suit in India in the name of the firm. Under Order 30 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure two or more persons carrying on business in India may sue or be sued in the name of the firm. The Supreme Court held that it was only misdescription of the plaintiff and the plaint was allowed to be amended by substituting the names of the partners under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Again in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Build ing Material Supply, Gurgaon a persons who was the manager of the Joint Hindu Family carrying on joint family business filed a suit only in the business name and it was held that the plaint should be allowed to be amended by allowing the Manager to sue in his name. The Supreme Court in this case also observed as follows :- "rules of procedure are intended to be a hand maid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensed for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. " ( 2 ) THUS it would be seen that the present case is a case of misdescription of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is described as gala Beauty Parlour through its proprietor Smt. Harjit Kaur Bagga . It ought to have been described as Smt. Harjit Kaur Bagga, proprietor of or trading as Gala Beauty Parlour. This is a clear case of misdescription of the plaintiff. No. prejudice will be caused to the defendant if the plaintiff is allowed to amend the title of the plaint as proposed. I, therefore, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint by amending the title so as to read "smt. This is a clear case of misdescription of the plaintiff. No. prejudice will be caused to the defendant if the plaintiff is allowed to amend the title of the plaint as proposed. I, therefore, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint by amending the title so as to read "smt. Harjit Kaur Bagga trading as Gala Beauty Parlour, B-11, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi" on payment of Rs. 100. 00as costs. The suit be listed before the Deputy Registrar on 25th February, 1980 for payment of costs and for filing amended plaint.