JUDGMENT A.L. Vaidya, J.—A suit for recovery of Rs 27,911.63 paise was filed by the plaintiff M/s Himland Hotel (West), Shimla through its Proprietor Sh. V.P. Akre against the present petitioner Sh Ajay Dubey. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 19-4-1993 and on 25-3-1994 when the case was fixed for plaintiffs evidence it was revealed that Proprietor of the plaintiff concern had died and the legal representatives wanted to move an application. An application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. was filed and it was prayed therein that Sh. Anil Walia be ordered to be added and substituted in place of Sh. V.P. Akre as Managing Director in the plaint. This application was resisted on behalf of present defendant-petitioner, 2. The trial Court after hearing the parties, allowed the application subject to payment of Rs. 300 as costs vide order dated 23-2-1997. The amended plaint is on record. 3. The aforesaid order passed by the trial court allowing the application preferred under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 6. Rule 17, C.P.C. has been assailed in the present revision petition on various grounds. 4. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and the relevant record in this particular behalf has also been scrutinised. 5. It has been very forcefully submitted on behalf of the defendant-petitioner that the application in the background of the circumstances present in this case could not have been allowed legally on the basis of the following grounds : (i) by allowing the application, the trial Court has substituted a new person in place of the original plaintiff. (ii) by substituting new plaintiff, the cause of action pleaded becomes without limitation on the date of substitution of new plaintiff; 6. On the other hand, it has been the case of the present respondent as submitted before this Court that it was not a case of substitution of a new plaintiff, but on the other hand the mis description of the plaintiff in the original plaint has been sought to be corrected which has been so done in the order under reference and, according to the learned Counsel, the contentions putforth on behalf of the opposite side in this context does not carry any legal weight. 7. 7. In order to appreciate the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, certain facts relevant to the case are required to be referred at this stage. 8. Paras 2 to 6 of the application are being reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience ; "2. That inadvertently and under bonafide mistake while drafting the plaint in the heading of the suit it has been mentioned that Sh. V.P. Akre was the proprietor of the said concern and infact his status was that only of Managing Director and in that capacity to work till the time of his death. 3. That after his death Sh. Anil Walia has become the Managing Director of the said Hotel and his name is to be substituted in place of Sh V.P. Akre in the capacity of Managing Director and it is only Sh Anil Walia who is entitled to be substituted in place of Sh, V.K. Akre. 4. That apparently, the mistake was bonafide in so much so that instead of Managing Director word "proprietor” was mentioned and accordingly the word "Managing Director” be allowed to be substituted in place of word proprietor in the heading of the plaint and Sh. Anil Walia be ordered to be added and substituted in place Sh. V.P. Akre, as Managing Director in the heading of the plaint. 5. That no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendant as the amendment sought only pertains to mis-description of the status of the Managing Partner Sh V.P. Akre and accordingly the amendment sought be allowed to be incorporated in the heading of the plaint and deceased Sh V.P. Akre be allowed to be substituted by Sh. Anil Walia who has acquired and appointed as Managing Director of the said concern." 9. The plaintiff has brought on record Articles of Association of Himland Resorts Private Ltd, which have been framed under the Companies Act. Article 31 reads as under : "The first Directors of the Company shall be the following : (i) Sh. Ved Parkash Akre, (ii) Smt. Usha Ahluwalia, (iii) Sh. Anil Walia. 10. Under Article 39, Sh. The plaintiff has brought on record Articles of Association of Himland Resorts Private Ltd, which have been framed under the Companies Act. Article 31 reads as under : "The first Directors of the Company shall be the following : (i) Sh. Ved Parkash Akre, (ii) Smt. Usha Ahluwalia, (iii) Sh. Anil Walia. 10. Under Article 39, Sh. Ved Parkash Akre has been described as the permanent Managing Director of the Company and it has also been provided therein that after his death, the Board may from time to time appoint one or more Directors to be Managing Director and, or whole time Director or Directors or Technical Director or Technical Directors for such period and upon such terms as it may think fit, subject to the provisions of sections 313 and 314 of the Companies Act, 1956, 11. The Board of Directors of Himland Resorts Private Ltd after the death of Sh. V.P. Akre, Managing Director, appointed Sh Anil Walia, Director of the Company as Managing Director of the Company in place of Sh. V.P. Akre. 12. This Anil Walia has solemnly affirmed on oath that Himland Hotel (West) is operated and managed by its parent Company in the name and style of Himland Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Some certificate to that effect from the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Tourism, has also been placed on record. 13. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, though they are not being admitted by the opposite side and are being disputed, originally Sh. V.P. Akre was the Managing Director of the Private Ltd. Company, named as Himland Resorts and M/s Himland Hotel (West) was being operated by the aforesaid Company being part of that. 14. According to the respondent, no doubt this original suit was filed by Sh V.P. Akre, describing himself as Proprietor of the concern, which face according to the respondent, was not, correct and this defect was revealed after the death of Sh V. Pc Akre, inasmuch as earlier it was not so known as Sh. V.P. Akre was pursuing the suit. According to the respondent, Sh. V.P. Akre was pursuing the suit. According to the respondent, Sh. V.P. Akre was never Proprietor of the concern but only a Managing Director and to describe himself as Proprietor in a way was bonafide mistake as actually he filed the suit as a Managing Director and after his death successor Managing Director has to be brought in his place Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, by allowing the application of the respondent, the trial Court only corrected the status of the party hot properly described in the plaint. In support of this submission, it has been contended that the present case will not be a case of change of plaintiff especially when Sh. V.P. Akre was correct and proper person, who had instituted the suit but with some bonafide error he described himself to be Proprietor instead of Managing Director of the Private Ltd Company, By allowing the application the successor Managing Director has been substituted in place of original Managing Director and thus it has been argued that it will not amount to subletting of a new or adding of altogether a new person as plaintiff, as has been the case of present petitioner. 15. The arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent appears to be most reasonable and genuine. 16. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that at one hand Sh. V.P. Akre is described as Proprietor and in para (5) of the application, he has been described as Managing Partner and now he is being described as the Managing Director and on that account as the respondent was not certain about the status of the original plaintiff and accordingly the application has to be disallowed on this score alone. 17. It is correct that originally Sh. V.P. Akre has been described as Proprietor and through the application preferred that status of Sh. V.P. Akre has been sought to be altered to that of Managing Director of the Private Ltd. Company. To describe Sh V.P. Akre, as Managing Partner in para (5) of the application appeared to be some clerical or bonafide error as has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent. V.P. Akre has been sought to be altered to that of Managing Director of the Private Ltd. Company. To describe Sh V.P. Akre, as Managing Partner in para (5) of the application appeared to be some clerical or bonafide error as has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In case the entries matter in its right perspective is taken note of, respondents simple case has been that Sh V.P. Akre as Managing Director filed the suit and in his place present Managing Director after his death is to be substituted 18. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to find some support from AIR 1983 Karn 217, Sha Babulal and Co. v. B. Nagappa. The relevant paragraphs are 6 to 9 which are being reproduced hereunder ; “6 Section 21 of the Limitation Act reads : "Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant : (1) Where after the institution of a suit, a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a party : Provided that where the Court is satisfied that the omission to include a new plaintiff or defendant was due to a mistake made in good faith it may direct chat the suit as regards such plaintiff or defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted on any earlier date." 7. In this case, there is no dispute that the suit was originally instituted in the name of “Shah Babulal Sohanlal and Co.," a joint family firm Bangle Merchant, B.P. Road, Davangere City by partner Rattanchand Subsequently, by an amendment it is changed into "Shah Babulal Sohanlal and Co Partnership Firm” Bangle Merchant, B.P. Road, Davangere City by partner Rattanchand. Thus, it is obvious that a joint family firm is substituted by a registered partnership firm The question is whether that would amount, merely to, correct description of the plaintiff or substitution of a new patty as contemplated under section 21 of the Limitation Act ? 8. The Supreme Court of India in Ramaprasad Dagaduram v. Vijayakumar Motilal Hirakhanwala, AIR 1967 SC 278, has held : "The High Court erred in assuming in assuming that addition of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 (1) Civil Procedure Code did not attract section 22 of the Limitation Act. 8. The Supreme Court of India in Ramaprasad Dagaduram v. Vijayakumar Motilal Hirakhanwala, AIR 1967 SC 278, has held : "The High Court erred in assuming in assuming that addition of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 (1) Civil Procedure Code did not attract section 22 of the Limitation Act. The present suit was not a continuation of the original suit.” It is true that if the original party was described as joint family firm and subsequently the description was got changed stating that the suit was by the Manager of the joint family, as such, there would be an amendment with regard to the description of party. But, where a registered firm is substituted for a joint family, it is obvious that a new party is added. It is not merely the case of correcting the mis-description of the party. Because, the parties would be entirely different. That is what the learned Civil Judge has held I find no reason to differ. 9. The Earned Civil Judge has further stated that it is not a mere bonafide mistake or a mistake made ia good faith as the registration certificate was with the plaintiff ft is in that view that he has come to the conclusion that section 21 of the Limitation Act applies to the facts Of the case and the suit is barred by time as the amendment is effected after three years of the institution of the suit. I have no reason to differ." 19. In the aforesaid case, on the basis of the facts involved therein it was held that the parties after substitution would be entirely different parties. It was held that it was not a mere bona fide mistake or a mistake made in good faith and thereafter it was observed that the suit was barred by time. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, those are quite distinct. For the sake of repetition it may be again pointed out very specifically that in the original suit status of Sh V.P. Akre was mis-described, which has been sought to be corrected though after his death j when the matter came to the knowledge of the Board of Directors of the Company. 20. For the sake of repetition it may be again pointed out very specifically that in the original suit status of Sh V.P. Akre was mis-described, which has been sought to be corrected though after his death j when the matter came to the knowledge of the Board of Directors of the Company. 20. AIR 1969 SC 1267, Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, has been referred on behalf of the respondent’ Paras 1 to 3 of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court deals with the factual side involved in that case, which runs as under : “On March 11, 1950, Manohar Lal s/o Jai Jai Ram commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nainital, for a decree for Rs 10,180/12 being the value of timber supplied to the defendant-The National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon. The action was instituted in the name of "Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal” which was the name in which the business was carried on. The plaintiff Manohar Lal subscribed his signature at the foot of the plaint as "Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, by the pen of Manohar Lal", and the plaint was also similarly verified. The defendant by its written statement contended that the plaintiff was an unregistered firm and on that account incompetent to sue. 2. On July 18,1952, the plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint Manohar Lal stated that “the business name of the plaintiff is Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal and therein Manohar Lal the owner and proprietor is clearly shown and named. It is a joint Hindu family business and the defendant and all knew it that Manohar Lal whose name is there alongwith the fathers name is the proprietor of it. The name is not an assumed or fictitious one " The plaintiff on those averments applied for leave to describe himself in the cause title as "Manohar Lal proprietor of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal and in paragraph 1 to state that he carried on the business in timber in the name of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lai Apparently oo reply was filed to this application by the defendant. The subordinate Judge granted leave to amend the plaint, He observed that there was no doubt that the real plaintiff was Manohar Lai himself, that it was Manohar Lai who intended to file and did in fact filed the action, and that the "amendment was intended to bring what in effect had been done in conformity with what in fact should have been done.9 3. The defendant then Sled a supplementary written statement raising two additional contentions—(1) the Manohar Lai was not the sole owner of the business and that his other brothers were also the owners of the business, and (2) chat in any event the amendment became effective from July 18, 1252, and on that account the suit was barred by the law of limitation.” 21. The trial Court in the aforesaid reported case decreed the suit and an appeal was preferred before the High Court. The High Court was of the view that the action Instituted in the name of a "non-existing person" and Manohar Lal having failed to over in the application for amendment that the action was instituted in the name of "Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal" on account of some bonafide mistake or omission, the Subordinate Judge was incompetent to grant leave to amend the plaint. The High Court came to the conclusion that the action could not be instituted by the plaintiff in the business name, it should have been instituted in the name of the Karta of the Hindu undivided family in his representative capacity or else all the members of the joint family must join as plaintiffs. The High Court made the following observations : "The suit instituted by the joint Hindu family business in the name of an assumed business title was a suit by a person, who did not exist and was, therefore, a nullity, Hence there could be no amendment of the description of such a plaintiff who did not exist in the eye of law. The Court below was in obvious error in thinking otherwise and allowing the name of Manohar Lal to be added as proprietor of the original plaintiff Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal; which was neither a legal entity nor an existing person who could have validly instituted the suit." 22. The Court below was in obvious error in thinking otherwise and allowing the name of Manohar Lal to be added as proprietor of the original plaintiff Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal; which was neither a legal entity nor an existing person who could have validly instituted the suit." 22. The High Court was of the opinion that substitution of the name of Manohar Lai as plaintiff during the pendency of the action took effect from July 18, 1952 and the action must be deemed co be instituted on that date and amendment could not take effect retrospectively. 23. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case in para 5 observed as under: “The order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid 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 composed 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 it if can be made without injustice to the other side." 24. Under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. a party can be permitted to alter its pleadings at any stage of the proceeding provided such an amendment was essential to determine the real controversy between the parities. Here in the present case, cause of action remains the same which being recovery of an amount due from the defendant for his stay in the Hotel. Defendants simple case has been that no doubt he stayed but he had made the payments and nothing was due to him This is so pleaded by him in the written statement filed to the original plaint Thus, on the basis of the case of the parties, more so, as of the defendant, reflected from his earlier written statement, no prejudice or no injury is liable to be cased to the defendant and in the aforesaid background to correct misdescription of plaintiff described in the original plaint would be in the interest of justice. 25. 25. It may be pointed out here that this application has been disposed of on the basis of the allegations made therein coupled with the circumstances brought on record and it would be open to the defendant to take any legal plea to defend his case as he would be advised while filing the written statement to the amended plaint The observations made while disposing of this revision petition and the main petition preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. will not in any manner effect the patties case, which is yet to be tried on merit. 26. In view of the foregoing reasons, the order under reference does not suffer from any illegality. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their owe costs. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 29-12-1997. Registry to send the records forthwith so as to reach there on or before the fixed date. Revision petition dismissed. -