DAS GUPTA, C.J. :- This appeal raises the question whether when a suit has been instituted in the name of a partnership firm carrying on business outside India as plaintiff, a procedure which is not permitted by Order XXX, Rule 1 of the C. P. C. under which only partnership firms carrying on business within India may institute suits in the firm name, the defect can be cured later on by substituting in place of the firm name, the name of the individuals, who are the partners of the firm, by way of amendment. The plaintiffs name as mentioned in the plaint in the present suit is : "Manilal and Sons, a firm carrying on business at No. 11A Malacca Street, Singapore". It was subscribed in these words :

"Manilal and Sons by their constituted attorney D.P. Dunderdale".

The verification was also by the same gentlemen, D.P. Dunderdale, describing himself as constituted attorney of Manilal and Sons. This suit was instituted on 31-3-1951. Written statement was filed by the defendants, but no objection was taken therein to the defect indicated above namely, that though not permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure or any rules of the Original Side of this Court, the suit had been brought in the name of the partnership firm carrying on business outside India. The suit appeared in the Peremptory List of P.B. Mukharji, J., for the first time on 3-1-1957 and appeared therein for several days. On 20-1-1957, the defendants Solicitor informed the plaintiffs Solicitors that as the plaintiff was a firm carrying on business at Singapore, an objection would be taken on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit that the suit as framed was null and void and not maintainable. In view of this information and with a view to cure, if possible, the defect, as pointed out by the defendants Solicitor, an application was made in the name, again of Manilal and Sons, the plaintiff, praying for substitution of the names of the individual partners of the firm in place of the firm name. It was averred that Dahyabhai Trikambhai Patel, Pravinbhai Dayabhai Patel, Gangaben Iswarbhai Patel, Bachubhai Manubhai Amin and Manubhai Maganbhai Amin had at all material times been and were still the partners of the plaintiff firm; that the suit was intended to be instituted on their behalf, but that they had been collectively mentioned in the firm name and this being a mere misdescription, the plaint should be allowed to be amended by bringing on the record the names of the individual partners. If the amendment as prayed for be allowed, the plaintiffs name would appear thus : "Dahyabhai Trikambhai Patel, Pravindbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Gangaben Iswarbhai Patel, Bachubhai Manibhai Amin and Manubhai Maganbhai Amin carrying on business under the name and style of Manilal and Sons, at No. 11A Malacca Street, Singapore". Consequential amendments in the body of the plaint by using the plural plaintiffs instead of the singular were also prayed for. To these the defendant objected the main ground of the objection being that as the provisions of Order XXX, Rule 1. of the C. P. C. were not applicable to the case of a foreign firm, the effect of a suit being filed by a foreign firm in the firm name was that the suit was by an entity which had no existence in the eye of law. It was also urged that there was no proper application even now on behalf of the individual partners and so the application should not be allowed. It was further urged that, in any case, the application should not be allowed as the claims In the suit were now barred by limitation. It was further stated that Mr. Dunderdale who signed and verified the plaint as on behalf of Manilal and Sons had not the proper authority to do so.

2. P.B. Mukharji, J., who heard the application, was of opinion that this was not a case of misdescription but that the legal position was that the firm could not be legally recognised as a plaintiff and the plaint was a mere nullity of process. He also held that there was no scope of