JUDGMENT (M.R. Verma, J.) :- This is an application styled to be one under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for imp leading the party, moved by applicant/Plaintiff (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff). It is averred that the defendant No.5 which is a Company has been sued through its Printer and Publisher inadvertently and by a bonafide mistake whereas it was required to be sued through its Principal Officer. Therefore, the plaintiff has sought permission to sue defendant No.S through its Managing Director. 2. The application is contested by the non-applicants/ defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) on the grounds that the application lacks full and material particulars and plaintiff cannot be permitted to add new defendants at this stage when the suit has become barred by limitation, therefore, the application is not competent and is liable to be rejected. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant material placed on the record. 4. A perusal of the plaint reveals that defendant No.5 has been im-pleaded therein as follows: "5. The Statesman Statesman House, 148, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001 through its Printer and Publisher Mr. Siby Thomas." 5. The aforesaid description of defendant No.5 is now sought to be given by substituting the following: "The Statesman, Statesman House, 148, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001 through its Managing Director." 6. It is evident that the plaintiff intended to sue defendant No.5 and had in fact sued it but apparently not through the competent person. It is further evident from the contents of the application that the plaintiff infact does not want to substitute another person as defendant No.5 but infact wants to rectify the mistake which has been committed about mentioning the person through whom it ought to have been sued. It is thus clear that the suit from its very inception is against the Statesman and what is sought to be done by the present application is to rectify the mistake to enable a proper description of defendant No.5. Strictly speaking Order 1 Rule 10 has no application to the case of this kind because the suit has not been instituted against a wrong defendant. Strictly speaking Order 1 Rule 10 has no application to the case of this kind because the suit has not been instituted against a wrong defendant. However, correction as prayed for does not seem to be impermissible under the law nor the provisions of the Limitation Act are attracted in the present case for the simple reason that it is not a case of substitution of a party thereby additing new defendant but is a case of giving correct description of one of the defendant already impleaded in the case. 7. In case Purushottam Umedbhai and Co. v. M/s. Mani Lal and sons AIR 1961 SC 325, the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: "(9)......It seems, therefore, that a plaint filed in a Court in India in the name of a firm doing business outside India is not by itself a nullity. It is a plaint by all the partners of the firm with a defective description of themselves for the purposes of the Code of Civil Procedure. In these circumstances, a civil court could permit, under the provisions of S. 153 of the Code (or possibly under O.VIJR, 17, about which we say nothing), an amendment of the plaint to enable a proper description of the plaintiffs to appear in it in order to assist the court in determining the real question or issue between the parties. Strictly speaking 0.1, R. 10( 1) has no application to a case of this kind because the suit has not been instituted in the name of a wrong person, nor is it a case of there being a doubt whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff. The provisions of 0.1, R.10(2) also do not apply because it is not a case of any party having been improperly joined whose name has to be struck out or a case of adding a person or a party who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The suit has been from its very inception a suit by the partners of the firm and no question of adding or substituting any person arises, the partners collectively being described as a firm with a particular name." 8. The suit has been from its very inception a suit by the partners of the firm and no question of adding or substituting any person arises, the partners collectively being described as a firm with a particular name." 8. It is thus evident from the law as laid-down in the case supra that the correction as prayed for though may strictly not to be covered within the scope of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC but can be allowed in view of the provisions of Section 153 of the Coe of Civil Procedure and the law of limitation in such a case will not be attracted. 9. Though the application has been styled to be one under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC but a perusal thereof as a whole reveals that there is no prayer for substituting a new defendant but in fact what is intended by the application is to give the correct description of defendant No.5. 10. It is well settled that when a relief has been claimed which the court has power to grant then mentioning of a wrong provision of law under which the application is made should not deter the court from allowing the application merely on a technical ground. 11. In view of the above discussion and conclusions, this application is allowed subject to costs of Rs.500/- to be paid by the plaintiff/applicant to the defendants-Non-applicants. Application allowed