Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The defendant in O. S. No. 26/96 on the file of District Munsif, Virudhunagar is the revision petitioner. An amendment prayed for by the plaintiff in I.A. No. 641/96, the details of which will be given later in this order, was allowed by the learned trial Judge. Questioning the correctness of the same, the defendant is before this Court. 2. I heard Mr. N. Damodaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. S. Somasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The suit is laid on a promissory note. The defendant in the short cause title of the plaint is shown as T.M.T. Nagarathinam and Co. by N. Umakandhan, Partner. In the long cause title of the plaint the defendant is described as Umakandhan, son of Nagarajan, residing at No. 71, South Car Street, Virudhunagar. The defendant in his written statement had stated that it is only T.M.M.T. Nagarajan and son had borrowed amounts from one Beemarajan and Co. and N. B. Padmavathi and Co. and the said debt has been fully discharged. At that stage, the plaintiff filed an amendment application to amend the short cause title and the long cause title of the plaint by substituting the words Nagarajan and Son for the words Nagarathinam and Co. found therein. This was opposed and yet the trial Judge ordered. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that by allowing the substitution of the words Nagarajan and son in the place of Nagarathinam and Co. a new party is being brought before the court and it cannot be done. Learned counsel would also add that by allowing the amendment the basis structure of the suit itself is changed. Opposing the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there is no doubt as to the identity of the person who was intended to be sued and the mistake in showing Nagarathinam and Co. as the defendant in the short cause title and the name of Umakathan alone in the long cause title had crept in inadvertently due to typographical error. as the defendant in the short cause title and the name of Umakathan alone in the long cause title had crept in inadvertently due to typographical error. Learned counsel for the respondent would also state that the defendant is fully aware as to the exact person against whom the suit is laid and from whom the recovery is sought to be made and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant by allowing the amendment. 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, I perused the copy of the promissory note produced by the learned counsel for the respondent, on which the suit is laid. The promissory note recites that the borrower is T.M.M.T. Nagarajan and Son represented by its partner N. Umakandhan. The promissory note is signed for and on behalf of the firm by N. Umakandhan. Prior to the suit a lawyer's notice dated 14-1-1995 was issued demanding the amount due on the suit promissory note to T.M.M.T. Nagarajan and Son, represented by its partner N. Chidambaram and one V. Meenakashi. Meenakshi is shown to be the wife of Umakandan and Meenakshi had signed the promissory note as a guarantor. Looking at all these materials, I am of the opinion that there cannot be any doubt in the mind of the plaintiff as to the identity of the person whom he wanted to sue for the money due on the promissory note. In Mura Mohideen v. V. O. A. Mohamed, 1955 AIR(Madras) 294 the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and Justice Mr. Rajagopala Ayyangar had held, while considering the amendment of the plaint in that case, which is more or less similar to the case on hand, as follows : "If however imperfectly and incorrectly a party is designated in a plaint the correction of the error is not the addition or substitution of a party but merely clarifies and makes apparent what was previously shrouded in obscurity by reason of the error or mistake. The question in such a case is one of intention of the party and if the Court is able to discover the person or persons intended to sue or to be sued a mere misdescription of such a party can always be corrected provided the mistake was bona fide." 5. The question in such a case is one of intention of the party and if the Court is able to discover the person or persons intended to sue or to be sued a mere misdescription of such a party can always be corrected provided the mistake was bona fide." 5. From the facts noticed by me in this case, I am of the opinion that the mistake in showing T.M.M.T. Nagarathinam and Co. as a defendant in the suit appears to be a bona fide mistake as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. The suit promissory note is signed by Umakandan in his capacity as a partner of T.M.M.T. Nagarathinam and Son. Umakandan is shown as a partner of T.M.M.T. Nagarathinam and Co. in the short cause title of the plaint and he is shown in his individual capacity in the long cause title of the plaint. Under these circumstances, I am of the firm opinion that the identity of the person who is to be sued is not at all in doubt in this case. If that is so, applying the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court referred to supra, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Judge had rightly allowed the amendment. Accordingly, this revision fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 2889/97 is also dismissed. 6. Since the suit is of the year 1996 and it has been laid on a promissory note, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit in any event not later than 30-6-1999 and send a report about the same to this Court. The learned trial Judge is directed to act on the production of the steno copy of this order by either of the parties before him without in any way waiting for an official communication of the same through the Registry of this Court. Petition dismissed.