A.L. Vaidya, J.—A suit for recovery of Rs 27,911.63 paise was filed by the plaintiff M/s Himland Hotel (West), Shimla through its Proprietor Sh. V.P. Akre against the present petitioner Sh Ajay Dubey. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 19-4-1993 and on 25-3-1994 when the case was fixed for plaintiffs evidence it was revealed that Proprietor of the plaintiff concern had died and the legal representatives wanted to move an application. An application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. was filed and it was prayed therein that Sh. Anil Walia be ordered to be added and substituted in place of Sh. V.P. Akre as Managing Director in the plaint. This application was resisted on behalf of present defendant-petitioner,

2. The trial Court after hearing the parties, allowed the application subject to payment of Rs. 300 as costs vide order dated 23-2-1997. The amended plaint is on record.

3. The aforesaid order passed by the trial court allowing the application preferred under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 6. Rule 17, C.P.C. has been assailed in the present revision petition on various grounds.

4. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and the relevant record in this particular behalf has also been scrutinised.

5. It has been very forcefully submitted on behalf of the defendant-petitioner that the application in the background of the circumstances present in this case could not have been allowed legally on the basis of the following grounds : (i) by allowing the application, the trial Court has substituted a new person in place of the original plaintiff. (ii) by substituting new plaintiff, the cause of action pleaded becomes without limitation on the date of substitution of new plaintiff;

6. On the other hand, it has been the case of the present respondent as submitted before this Court that it was not a case of substitution of a new plaintiff, but on the other hand the mis description of the plaintiff in the original plaint has been sought to be corrected which has been so done in the order under reference and, according to the learned Counsel, the contentions putforth on behalf of the opposite side in this context does not carry any legal weight.

7. In order to appreciate the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, certain facts relevant to the case are required to be referred at this stage.

8. Paras 2 to 6 of the application are being reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience ; "2. That inadvertently and under bonafide mistake while drafting the plaint in the heading of the suit it has been mentioned that Sh. V.P. Akre was the proprietor of the said concern and infact his status was that only of Managing Director and in that capacity to work till the time of his death.

3. That after his death Sh. Anil Walia has become the Managing Director of the said Hotel and his name is to be substituted in place of Sh V.P. Akre in the capacity of Managing Director and it is only Sh Anil Walia who is entitled to be substituted in place of Sh, V.K. Akre.

4. That apparently, the mistake was bonafide in so much so that instead of Managing Director word "proprietor” was mentioned and accordingly the word "Managing Director” be allowed to be substituted in place of word proprietor in the heading of the plaint and Sh. Anil Walia be ordered to be added and substituted in place Sh. V.P. Akre, as Managing Director in the heading of the plaint.

5. That no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendant as the amendment sought only pertains to mis-description of the status of the Managing Partner Sh V.P. Akre and accordingly the amendment sought be allowed to be incorporated in the heading of the plaint and deceased Sh V.P. Akre be allowed to be substituted by Sh. Anil Walia who has acquired and appointed as Managing Director of the said concern."

9. The plaintiff has brought on record Articles of Association of Himland Resorts Private Ltd, which have been framed under the Companies Act