A misdescription of the defendant in the cause title can be corrected without any regard to lapse of time, provided that the suit is, in substance, directed against the same party.

madan mohan prasad, J.

1. There two applications in revision arise out of the same case1 and common circumstance.

2. It appears that the plaintiffs-opposite party filed a suit against the chairman of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the board) and some of its officers for an injunction against them from disconnecting the supply of electrical energy and from charging at the maximum guaranteed rate for the consumption of such electrical energy.

3. The defendants appeared and filed a written statement. One of the objections taken was that the suit was not maintainable because it should have been filed against the Board which is a body corporate and could sue and be sued in its own name. The matter was fixed up for hearing on a particular date. On that very date, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint by deleting the word chairman in the description of the first defendant. A copy of the aforesaid petition was given to the defendants. Both sides were heard and an order was passed allowing the amendment. It may be s tated that it appears that the taking of the matter of amendment on the aforesaid date and the passing of the order by the court below led to certain difference between the court and the lawyers for the defendants petitioners, who ultimately filed an application making certain allegations against the court and praying for at least a months time for filing a revision against the order aforesaid. After allowing the amendment by the same order the learned Munsif directed issuance of notice against the lawyers of the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of his court. The present applications in revision are accordingly directed against the two orders.

4. With regard to the petition filed by the advocates which is the subject matter of C. R.463 of 1972, it may be stated at the outset that Counsel for the petitioners sought leave to withdraw the application with a view to raise the matter before the trial court itself in the first instance. I think that in the circumstances of the present case, the prayer is reasonable and proper and ought to be granted. I would accordingly do so. I his petition is, therefore, dismissed a s withdrawn.

5. Coming now to the question as to whether the amendment sought for has been rightly allowed. Counsel for the petitioners urged, firstly, that the nature of the suit would change if the amendment is permitted, inasmuch as the suit which is presently directed against the Chairman would become a suit against the Board ; secondly, that at the date of amendment aforesaid, the suit against the Board stands time-barred and, thirdly, that the court below, violated the principles of natural justice by not giving sufficient time to the petitioners to file rejoinder to the application or additional written statement. I propose to examine the submissions made in the order I have put them. At the outset, however, I must state that there is no substance in any of these contentions.

6. It is true that the first defendant was described as "the Chairman, bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. " It is not, however, true that suit was directed against the Chairman personally, The grievance made out in the plaint read as a whole is against the Board itself. The reliefs prayed for are directed as against the Board. As stated earlier, they arc obviously reliefs prayed for against the Board, viz. injunction against disconnecting the supply line or from charging at a particular rate which is alleged to be illegal. Surely, neither the supply of electrical energy nor its disconnection nor charging for the supply at a particular rate are matters of personal interest to the Chairman. Obviously, they are thus reliefs against the Board and not against the Chairman individually. The suit thus, regarding the averments and the reliefs prayed for in the plaint, is directed against the Board and not against the Chairman.