JUDGMENT Pratyush Kumar, J. Heard Sri G.K. Pathak, advocate appearing for the revisionist. 2. The present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act assailing the validity of order dated 1st July, 2015 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. (V), Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No. 158 of 2014 (Vishnu Kumar Mishra Vs. Shanti Kumar Asthana) whereby amendment application moved by plaintiff/respondent has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. According to him, the lower court has permitted the respondent to change the name of the revisionist/defendant. According to him, whatever rights accrued vide notice dated 21st March, 2012 were against Shantanu Kumar Asthana. Now by the impugned order, learned lower court has permitted the plaintiff to shift the default on the present revisionist whereas he was not given any valid notice terminating his tenancy. He further submits that nowhere name of the revisionist has been shown as Shantanu Kumar Asthana. According to him, law does not permit any person to change name of any other person. 4. Perusal of the record reveals that the aforesaid S.C.C. suit was filed by the respondent on the basis of notice dated 21st March, 2012 and rent-deed dated 14th December, 2010. In the notice, address of the noticee is proceeded by the name of Sri Shantanu Kumar Asthana, S/o Har Sahai Asthana. The impugned order has permitted the respondent to file suit against Shantanu Kumar Asthana @ Shanti Kumar Asthana, S/o Har Sahai Asthana. Perusal of the record further reveals that rent-deed was executed between Vishnu Kumar Mishra, land-lord and Sri S.K. Ashthana, below the signature name of Sri Shantanu Kumar Asthana alias Shanti Kumar Asthana, advocate has been typed whereas in the body of the rent-deed, name of Shantanu Kumar Asthana has been written without any alias. 5. Now question arises whether by way of amendment the Court has permitted one person to be substituted by another person, in whose favour some substantive right has accrued. According to learned counsel for the revisionist, the right is protection against ejectment in the suit in question. When his argument is considered in the light of the settled legal proposition in reference to validity of notice, it transpires that all defects in the notice would not frustrate the suit filed by the landlord. According to learned counsel for the revisionist, the right is protection against ejectment in the suit in question. When his argument is considered in the light of the settled legal proposition in reference to validity of notice, it transpires that all defects in the notice would not frustrate the suit filed by the landlord. When conversely considered adding of alias in the name of the noticee it would not be fatal in every case, in which case addition to the name would be fatal and in which case it would not be fatal is a question of fact. This is for the parties to prove during trial. Law of pleading does not preclude the plaintiff to indicate the name of the person against whom he seeks relief subject to his right to see. 6. So far as plea regarding changing of nature of the suit is concerned, the suit was filed with the prayer for recovery of rent and ejectment of the alleged tenant by the plaintiff and even after amendment the nature of the suit remains same. When the suit is pending before the learned trial court and her pecuniary jurisdiction is not disputed, I do not think that the order is without jurisdiction. 7. One more objection has been raised that order is not speaking. The present litigation is S.C.C. suit which is itself summary remedy in nature. Learned lower court has written reason for allowing the proposed amendment. The material facts relevant for the purpose are implicit in the nature of suit i.e. rent ejectment suit. I do not think that order cannot be said to be non speaking order. 8. The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage.