ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE above Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of by this common order as they are filed against the order of dismissal dated 7-7-2000 by the Principal Senior Civil judge, Srikakulam, by a common order in i. A. No. 387/2000 in O. S. 2/98, I. A. No. 388/2000 in O. S. 33/99 and I. A. No. 389/2000 in O. S. 95/99 respectively, filed for amendment of cause title with regard to name of the 1st defendant in the suits. The said three I. As were dismissed on the ground that amendment sought for in the above said I. As. if allowed, would take away the right accrued to the firm to defend the suits on the ground of limitation. ( 2 ) THE above I. As are filed under section 153 CPC praying the Court below to permit the petitioner to amend the short and long cause title of the plaints relating to the description of the 1st defendant by inserting the name of the 1st defendant as m/s. Kameswari Enterprises, represented by its Managing Partner Varada Venkata govinda Rajulu" in the place of "varada venkata Govinda Rajulu". ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner in the affidavits filed in support of the I. As. that under the lease agreement (Ex. A-1), the lessee is kameswari Enterprises, represented by its Managing Partner varada Venkata Govinda Rajulu and by oversight the defendant was wrongly described as varada Venkata Govinda rajulu which is only a wrong description and so the petitioner may be permitted to correct the same. The same was resisted by the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 in the I. As. on the ground that the proposed correction amounts to substitution of a new party and, therefore, the provisions under section 153 or Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) have no application to the present case and that the right accrued to the 1st defendant by means of limitation will be lost if the petitions are allowed and the proposed amendment is ordered. On consideration of both the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, the Court below accepted the contention of the respondent/defendant No. 1 and dismissed the I. As. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present C. R. Ps are filed. On consideration of both the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, the Court below accepted the contention of the respondent/defendant No. 1 and dismissed the I. As. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present C. R. Ps are filed. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by Sri M. S. K. Sastry, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Court below in the above I. As. , is contrary to law as the same is passed under a wrong provision of law i. e. , Section 153 of C. P. C. , which is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The correct provision of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case is Order I rule 10 C. P. C ( 5 ) SECTION 153 C. P. C. deals with General power to amend, which reads as under:"the Court may, at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding. A reading of the above Section contemplates that the Court may at any time after imposing such terms as to costs or otherwise order to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding. It deals with amendment of any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit i. e. , the Court has got power to correct any mistake occurred while passing a preemption decree as to the omission of the date by which the money has to be deposited, but the Court has no right to reject the application for rectification in the decree. The convenient and general test that can be applied to determine whether the correction sought for is in the field of accidental slip or omission or not, is to examine whether the judgment as it stands represents the intention of the judge at the time he made it, and if it does, then, a mistake in it cannot be treated as an accidental slip or omission. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that Section 153 of CPC does not deal with the amendment or substitution of a new party. Further the above section confers a general power on the Court to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit and to make all necessary amendments for the purpose of determining the real questions between the parties. ( 6 ) LET us now examine Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff:- (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as a plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. Court may strike out or add parties:- (2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. Of course, sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 deals with the limitation and the above power can be exercised by the Court subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act. Under section 21 of the Limitation Act, proceedings as against any person added shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. Of course, sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 deals with the limitation and the above power can be exercised by the Court subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act. Under section 21 of the Limitation Act, proceedings as against any person added shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. ( 7 ) RULE 10 of Order 1 of CPC contemplates that where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as a plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 contemplates that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. Of course, sub-rule (5) of rule 10 deals with the limitation and the above power can be exercised by the Court subject to the provisions of the Limitation act. Under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, proceedings as against any person shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. Of course, sub-rule (5) of rule 10 deals with the limitation and the above power can be exercised by the Court subject to the provisions of the Limitation act. Under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, proceedings as against any person shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. ( 8 ) FROM a reading of the above provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, it is clear that sub-rule (1) empowers the Court to order any person to be substituted or added upon such terms as the Court thinks just, at any stage of the suit, where the court is satisfied that the suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff through a bona fide mistake, or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute. Whereas sub-rule (2) deals with striking out or adding parties either plaintiff or defendant, i. e. , the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out and the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. ( 9 ) SUB-RULE (2) of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC contemplates three contingencies, viz. , (1) it has given discretionary power to the Court to add or substitute proper party on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just; (2) the Court can, either suo motu or on the application made by the parties, order substitution or addition of any person; and (3) the Court can add or substitute any proper party to enable it to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the dispute. Therefore, the purpose of incorporation of sub-rule (2) in the statute is only to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Therefore, the purpose of incorporation of sub-rule (2) in the statute is only to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. ( 10 ) THE provisions of the CPC are intended to defend but not to defeat the substantial justice. It is the substance that has got to be looked into but not the form in which the pleadings are drafted. The Court is always competent to correct mere errors of description under the provisions of the cpc, particularly, under Rule 10 of Order 1 cpc. Mere correction of errors as regards description do not involve any addition or substitution of parties as to attract the inhibition of the provisions contained in section 21 of the present Limitation Act. If it could be gathered from a reading of the pleadings and the antecedent circumstances that it is the firm viz. , M/s. Kameswari enterprises that was intended to be sued, then the amendment of the cause title to the effect that M/s. Kameswari Enterprises represented by its Managing Partner varada Venkata Govinda Rajulu does not substitute any addition or substitution of a new party. Therefore, the suit as against the firm M/s. Kameswari Enterprises must have been instituted from the date when the suit was originally instituted. ( 11 ) THE suits are based on a lease deed ex. A-1 executed in the name of m/s. Kameshwari Enterprises, represented by its Managing Partner Sri Varada Venkata govinda Rajulu. On behalf of the firm, the managing Partner has to execute the decree. The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that by oversight, the defendant is misdescribed as Varada Venkata Govinda Raju, managing Partner of Kameswari enterprises, and it is a technical error and a curable defect. A proper person is one whose presence is necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating the dispute therefore/the presence of M/s. Kameswari enterprises, the firm, is absolutely necessary and without its presence the issue cannot be effectively and completely adjudicated upon and decide between the parties. The paramount object of incorporating sub-rule (2) in the statute by the Legislature is to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties and to prevent the parties to approach the Court again and again for redressal of their grievances. The paramount object of incorporating sub-rule (2) in the statute by the Legislature is to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties and to prevent the parties to approach the Court again and again for redressal of their grievances. Keeping in view the intent of the legislature the Court below should have allowed the above said I. As. , after imposing terms as contemplated under the above said provisions of law. ( 12 ) THE judgments in AIR 1967 SC 278 and 1979 (2) MLJ page-1 relied upon by the court below are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The issue in the above judgments are entirely distinct. ( 13 ) FROM the above discussion, I am satisfied that the amendment as prayed for by the petitioner in these petitions can be allowed to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate the dispute and settle all the questions involved in the suits on imposing certain terms. I, accordingly, hold that the issues involved in the above petitions are to correct the misdescription of a party and it does not amount to substitution of a party. Therefore, the limitation starts from the date of filing of the above suits. Instead of dismissing the las. which are filed under Section 153 CPC, the Court below should have considered and allowed the same under Order 1 rule 10 of CPC as opined by the Court below. ( 14 ) IN view of the above, the common order of the Court below dated 7-7-2000 impugned in these three Civil Revision Petitions is set aside and the Civil Revision petitions are allowed on terms of payment of Rs. 1,000. 00 (Rs. One Thousand only) in each CRP to the credit of the Hon ble the Chief Justice Relief Fund, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.