A misdescription of a company's name in a suit will not render the decree unenforceable against the company if the identity of the company is clarified by the findings of the court.

S.K.Jha, J.

1. This is an appeal by Sarat Chandra Ghosh (Private) Limited, which has for all practical purposes, been treated as the defendant in the suit S.C. Ghosh (Private) Limited. The only point urged in this appeal is that the defendant having been sued as S.C. Ghosh (Private Ltd., the courts below had committed an error of law in holding that S.C. Ghosh (Private) Ltd. was nothing else but the abbreviated name of Sarat Chandra Ghosh (Private) Ltd. and that the appellant would be bound by the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff respondent.

2. The plaintiff Messrs. Swastika Mica Company, a registered firm, instituted the suit against S.C. Ghosh (Private) Ltd. for recovery of Rs. 1084 30 as price mica and Rs. 483 41 as interest theron. This money claim was based upon certain transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant in course of the business in mica resulting in the final adjustment of accounts leaving a balance of Rs. 1084.30 to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. In spite of demands, the same not having been paid, the plaintiff instituted the suit with a claim for interest also.

3. When summons was issued in the suit against the defendant S.C. Ghosh (Private) Ltd. the appellant Sarat Chandra Ghosh (Private) Ltd. appeared and field a written statement through one of its Directors Sushant Kumar Ghosh. The case made out in the written statement was that there is no company in the name of S.C. Ghosh (Private) Ltd. in existence nor was in existence at any time, the plaintiffs suit was barred under the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) as also by limitation and the plaintiff had no cause of action against the appellant Sarat Chandra Ghosh (Private) Ltd.

4. It ought to be mentioned that the plaintiff thereafter filed an application for amendment of the plaint by adding Sarat Chandra Ghosh (Private) Limited as a defendant also, but that application for amendment was rejected on the ground that if they were the same entity, there was no need for addition of the name of the appellant.

5. The trial court framed, inter alia, three issues after hearing both the plaintiff respondent and the appellant. They were-

(1) Is the suit barred under Section 69 of the Act ?

(2) Is the suit barred by limitation ?

(3) Is the defendant described as S.C. Ghosh (Private, Ltd. in the plaint the same firm as Sarat Chandra Ghosh (Private) Ltd. ?

The findings recorded were that the suit was not barred either under Section 69 of the Act or by limitation. Issue No. 3, vital for this appeal, was decided by the trial court in these terras- Therefore it is apparent that the defendant in the suit described as S.C. Ghosh (Private) Ltd. had no separate or different existence and it must be the abbreviated name of the same company as Sarat Chandra Ghosh (Private) Ltd. It is also clear therefore that it could not be argued that any company other than Sarat Chandra Ghosh (Private) Ltd. carried on the transactions in suit, because admittedly no company in the name of S.C. Ghosh (Private) Ltd. ever existed. So, after a careful consideration of all the aforesaid facts, circumstances and evidence on record it is held that the defendant described as S.C. Ghosh (Private) Ltd. in the plaint is the same company as Sarat Chandra Ghosh (Private) Ltd.

Having so decided the issue, the trial court in paragraph 21 of its judgment further held that, though the decree, which will be passed in the suit, will stand against the name of S.C. Ghosh (Private) Ltd. because that is the name of the defendant given in the plaint, it would be enforceable against the real company known as Sarat Chandra Ghosh (Private) Ltd., which has contested the suit. Against the decree passed by the trial court, the appellant preferred an appeal before the District Judge who has agreed with, and affirmed, the judgment of the trial court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in view of the provisions o