Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.-This is an appeal against the Judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., in S.A. No. 57 of 1947 filed by reason of the leave granted by the learned Judge under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal, were the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 497 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court of Tirunelveli filed by the respondents for the recovery of the value of articles supplied to the defendants between 27th October, 1941 and 19th January, 1942. The plaintiffs were the partners of a firm which was carrying on business in Burma under the trade name of “V.O.A. Alliar & Sons” which was registered under the law for the registration of partnerships in force in Burma. It was with this firm that the defendants-appellants had dealings as a result of which a sum of Rs. 1,657-9-0 became due to the plaintiffs firm. When Burma was overrun by the Japanese both the partners of the firm “V.P.A. Alliar & Sons” as well as defendants-appellants came over to their native places in Madras State. On 26th October, 1944, a suit was instituted for the recovery of this sum by the respondents in the name of “V.O.A. Alliar & Sons”through one of the partners “V.O.A. Mohamed”. When notice was served upon the defendants they objected to the maintainability of this suit because under the terms of Order 30, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, it is only the firm carrying on business in India that could take advantage of the provisions of this order. As the plaintiffs were admittedly carrying on business only in Burma the defendants objected that the suit as framed did not lie. In view of this objection an application I.A. No. 1037 of 1945 was filed on 5th September, 1945, to amend the plaint by the substitution of the names of the three partners of the firm “V.O.A. Alliar & Sons” in the place and instead of the name of the firm. This application was allowed by the learned District Munsif and the plaint was amended as prayed for in December, 1945. Out of the defences raised to the suit the only one that remains is that of limitation. The point raised was that the plaintiff in the suit as originally instituted was a non-existing person or entity, that the plaint became effective only when the three partners were brought on record as plaintiffs in December, 1945 and that by this date the claim was barred by limitation. It will be seen that this raised for consideration the question as to whether section 22 of the Indian Limitation Act applied so as to render the impleading of the three partners a substitution or addition of a new plaintiff within the meaning of that section. The learned District Munsif held that there was no addition or substitution of a new plaintiff but there was merely a correction of a misdescription and on this ground held the suit to be in time and a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

The defendants took the matter on appeal to the District Court of Tirunelveli in A.S. No. 101 of 1946 and the learned District Judge differing from the trial Court held that the suit was out of time. The plaintiffs filed a Second Appeal to this Court in S.A. No. 57 of 1947 which came on for hearing before Balakrishna Ayyar, J. and the learned Judge reversed the decision of the learned District Judge by holding, that the suit was. in time and granted a decree to the plaintiffs. In view however of the conflict in the authorities which was noticed in his judgment, the learned Judge granted leave to appeal from his judgment in pursuance of which this Letters Patent Appeal is filed.

Having considered the numerous authorities that there are on the point we are clearly of the opinion that the learned Judge is right in his view that section 22 of the Limitation Act is not attracted to the present case. We are fortified in this conclusion by reference to certain English decisions to which we shall be adverting in our discussion of the matter.

The sole question for consideration in this case is whether by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document