Amendment of a plaint to add a new party after the limitation period has expired will attract Section 22 of the Limitation Act, and the limitation period will be reckoned from the date when the new party is added.

BAPNA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge Baran, dated 14-12-49, by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money.

( 2 ) THE suit was originally instituted by Hazarl-lal describing himself as the son of hiralal, proprietor of the firm of Seth Hiralar Hazarilal. The defendant Jagannath was described as son of Lalli Bam, owner of the shop of Lalliram Jagannath at tekneri Pachar, Madhya Pradesh. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 3703/-/3. It was Instituted on 23rd October, 1948, in the Court ot Civil Judge, Baran, and the cause of action lor purposes of limitation was stated to have arisen on the 15th of november 1945. The defendant took a preliminary objection that the plaintiff was not the sole owner of the firm Hiralal and Hazarilal, but one Sunderlal was also a partner, and that as the suit was riot in the name of the firm the suit was bad for nor-joinder. The plaintiff filed an application on 16th February, 1849, praying lor amendment of the plaint so as to make the firm Hiralal Hazarilal as the plaintiff. In this application it was mentioned that Sunderlal was not made a party, because he had not contributed towards the capital of the firm. It seems to have been impliedly admitted that Sunderlal was a partner in the firm, and this con-clusion is confirmed by the fact that the second appeal was riled on behalf of the firm Hiralal hazarilal through both Seth Hazarilal and Sunder, The amendment was allowed by the trial Court on 19th March, 1949. The defendant raised a plea of limitation on the ground that when the proper party, viz. , firm Hiralal Hazarilal was brought on record on 19th March 1949, the suit had become barred by limitation. A preliminary issue on limitation was framed and decided against the plaintiff, and the suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Baran, on 24th August, 1949. The plaintiff filed on an appeal, but without success. Hence this second appeal.

( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the claim would become barred by time if it be considered that the suit was instituted by the proper party on 19th March, 1949, or for that matter on 16th February, 1949, when the application was made for amendment of the plaint.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the case was one only of misdescription, which could be corrected at any time alter the institution of tne suit, and the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act had no application in that case, Learned counsel relied on Moti Lal Jasraj v. Chandmal Hindumal AIR 1924 bom 155 (A), Rampra-sad Shivlal v. Shnnivas Balmukund AIR 1925 Bom 527 (B); prabhu Dayal v. Firm Prabhulal Chandmal, AIR 1954 Ajmer 7-4 (C); Deolal v. Tulararn Ram-sukh AIR 1928 Nag 319 (D); Anukul Chandra v. Dacca Dist. Board air 1928 Cal 485 (E ).

( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondent it was urged that the case was not one of misdescription, but was or adding new parties, and reliance was placed on Behiri Lal v. Ram Chindra AIR 1942 Oudh 335, (F); Neogi Ghose and Co. v. Nehal Singh AIR 1931 Cal 770 (G ).

( 6 ) IT is difficult to reconcile the authorities which have been cited, but the broad principle which can be found from these authorities is that if the case is only of misdescription, then the correction of the names of parties would not entail the application of Section 22 of the Limitation Act; but if it was a case of bringing on record a new party, then Section 22 comes into play, and the limitation is to be reckoned from the date when the new party is added. In the present case, the dealings were between the firm Hiralal Hazarilal, and the firm Lalliram Jagannath according to the entries in the account books of the plaintiff and the correspondence that has taken place with respect to the transactions which are the subject-matter of the suit. There is also no dispute on the fact that the. firm of hiralal Hazarilal had at least two partners Hazarilal Sunderlal. The defendants transactions were with the firm "hiralal Hazarila