K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs revision petition. Suit was filed, originally, describing the plaintiff as 'p. Mabusab and Sons. , firm repre- sented by its partner P. Mabusab'. A similar statement was made at para-1 of the plaint. The suit claim is for the recovery of certain sum of money, allegedly borrowed by the defendant, evidenced by a promissory note. ( 2 ) ACTUALLY, the firm had been dissolved on 21-10-1979, and Mabusab continued the business as the sole proprietor, under the trade name "p. Mabusab and Sons. " Suit was filed in the year 1982. Realising the mistake committed in the description of the plaint, an application I. A. No. IV was filed in December, 1985 in the lower court for the amendment of the plaint, so as to describe the plaintiff as 'p. Mabusab and Sons. , by its proprietor, P. Mabusab'. The explanation of the applicant was that, P. Mabusab and Sons, was the trade name, having a 'good will and therefore, he was carrying on the business in the said name and that by inadvertence a mistake was committed in the description of the plaintiff, while preparing the plaint. He further stated that, at the relevant point of time when the promissory note was executed by the defendant, the business was by the proprietary concern. ( 3 ) THE trial court, while rejecting the application, held that, (i) the application was filed nearly three years after the defendant filed his written statement and the plaintiff did not make any sincere efforts to set right the mistake in spite of a plea in the written statement as to the non-maintainability of the suit, because of the non-registration of the firm; in another suit O. S. No. 307/1981 also, the plaintiff claimed to be a partnership firm and the said suit was dismissed as the firm was not a registered firm and even thereafter, the plaintiff did not take any steps to rectify the mistake. It may be noted here itself that there was no material for the court about the averments in O. S. 307/1981 and its dismissal and hence this part of the reasoning has to be ignored as based on no evidence; (ii) valuable right accrued to the defendant by the filing of the suit in the name of a wrong person and hence, the said right cannot be defeated by permitting the amendment. ( 4 ) IT is not possible for me to agree with the reasoning of the trial court. I am of the view that, the lower court has misdirected itself while rejecting the application and applied wrong principles. While exercising the power under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, court has to see as to whether a totally new case replaces the original case and whether the cause of action gets altered. A substitution of an entirely different plaintiff from the original plaintiff, without any jural connection between the two, also would be a relevant factor for consideration. As observed in PIRGONDA HONGONDA PATIL v KALGONDA SHILGONDA PATIL and others ( AIR 1957 SC 363 ) all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions - (a) of not working injustice to the other side and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Question of limitation is relevant only when a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which, since the institution of the suit had become barred by limitation, is sought to be set up by the amendment. ( 5 ) WHEN a defendant pleads a total nonliability towards the original claim made in the plaint, it does not affect his case at all, when the same claim is not replaced by the amendment, but, certain collateral facts are sought to be elucidated or defects which can be generally described as formal, are sought to be connected. The delay in seeking the amendment by itself in such a situation, does not create a vested right in the defendant requiring any protraction by the court. ( 6 ) A claim on behalf of a partnership firm implies, a claim for the benefit of any of its partners. It is true that the law governing partnership has imposed certain formalities to be satisfied for a suit to be filed on behalf of a firm. ( 6 ) A claim on behalf of a partnership firm implies, a claim for the benefit of any of its partners. It is true that the law governing partnership has imposed certain formalities to be satisfied for a suit to be filed on behalf of a firm. But the fact remains that each partner acts for and on behalf of the partnership. Therefore, if a claim is made purporting to be on behalf of a firm (eventhough the firm did not exist), the claim cannot be held not to have been made, on behalf of the purported (or alleged) partners of the said firm. Hence, if the mistake is rectified by clarifying that the claim is on behalf of the real person (who is already a party as a plaintiff, under an erroneous guise of representing the firm), it is not a case of replacing the plaintiff at alt. It is a case of removing the misdescription of the plaintiff - (vide the ratio of Manoharlal v national Building Material Supply- AIR 1969 SC 1267 ). ( 7 ) CAUSE of action remains the same, - i. e. , the borrowing by the defendant and his failure to repay. He cannot be allowed to escape from his liability to repay the amount borrowed, by taking advantage of the mis- description of the plaintiff in the plaint. The approach adopted in IPPILI SATYANARAYANA v THE AMADALAVALASA co-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND industrial SOCIETY LTD. (AIR 1975 a. P. 22) was approved by the Supreme Court in a decision in M/s. GANESH TRADING co. v MOJI RAM ( AIR 1978 SC 484 ) at para-13. In the decision of the Andhra pradesh High Court, the defendant had totally denied his liability to repay the amount and attacked the promissory note as inadequately stamped. Plaintiff sought the amendment of the plaint claiming relief on the basis of original consideration; however on the date of the application for amendment, suit on the original consideration would have been barred by limitation. But the Andhra pradesh High Court held that amendment of the plaint ought to be allowed. It was held: "where the defence is one of total denial of the whole suit transaction, there is no question of the defendant being prejudiced by the amendment being introduced at that stage and it will be barred by limitation". But the Andhra pradesh High Court held that amendment of the plaint ought to be allowed. It was held: "where the defence is one of total denial of the whole suit transaction, there is no question of the defendant being prejudiced by the amendment being introduced at that stage and it will be barred by limitation". In Ganesh Trading Company case, ( AIR 1978 SC 484 ), the suit based on a promissory note was filed in the firm's name, represented by a partner. After some time, it was realised that the firm stood dissolved earlier to the suit and hence amendment of the plaintiffs description and other relevant facts were sought. The application was rejected by the trial court and the High court affirmed the trial court's order. The supreme Court reversed those orders and permitted the amendment of the plaint. After referring to a few earlier decisions and approving the view expressed in the aforesaid Andhra Pradesh decision, supreme Court proceeded to observe, at para-14: "in the case before us also, the suit having been instituted by one of the partners of a dissolved firm the mere specification of the capacity in which the suit was filed could not change the character of the suit or the case. It made no difference to the rest of the pleadings or to the cause of action. Indeed, the amendment only sought to give notice to the defendant of facts which the plaintiff would and could have tried to prove in any case. This notice was being given out of abundant caution, so that no technical objection may be taken that what was sought to be proved was outside the pleadings". At para-16, it was pointed out that the amendment "only bring out correctly the capacity of the plaintiff suing" (underlining is done here ). The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that,- " Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation' on particular causes of action must take". Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation' on particular causes of action must take". At para-4', it was pointed out that, "even if a party or its counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially the shortcoming can certainly be removed generally by appropriate steps taken by a party which must no doubt pay costs for the inconvenience or expense caused to the other side from its omissions. The error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued". ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent admitted before me that, his client (defendant) had pleaded a total denial of his liability. If so, by permitting the amendment of the plaintiff no prejudice will be caused to the defendant, as held in the aforesaid two decisions. The decision of this Court in T. REDDAPPA KOLAR v N. S. PRABHAKAR [ilr 1982 Kar. 730] is distinguishable on facts, with reference to the observations found at page 734; the nature of the amendment of the pleadings sought therein was different. ( 9 ) IN the present case, there was a misdescription of the plaintiff. The claim, as originally made on behalf of the non- existent firm necessarily included a claim on behalf of the alleged partner, who, in fact, is the proprietor of the concern; hence, correcting the description of the plaintiff does not result in replacing the plaintiff. Defendant, who has totally denied his liability, is not prejudiced by the amendment; cause of action for the suit remained unaltered by the amendment. Hence, interest of justice requires the allowing of the prayer for amendment. ( 10 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside and the permission sought for by the plaintiff is granted. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .