A proprietary concern cannot sue in its own name but can be represented by its proprietor; amendments to correct party descriptions are permissible.

ORDER :

(G.R. Swaminathan, J.)

1. Heard both sides.

2. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.119 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Judge, Karur. The suit was instituted in the name of Meena Garments duly represented by its Proprietor K.Sivanandapathi. I.A.No.06 of 2024 was filed for amending the plaint as follows:

"1) In the Short Cause Title & in the Docket, modify the plaintiff's description of Meena Garments duly represented by its Proprietor K.Sivanandapathi S/o.Kanagasabapathi as K.Sivanandapathi S/o.Kanagasabapathi, Proprietor M/s.Meena Garments.

2. In the Long Cause Title, modify the plaintiff's description Meena Garments duly represented by its Proprietor K.Sivanandapathi S/o.Kanagasabapathi as K.Sivanandapathi S/o.Kanagasabapathi, Proprietor M/s.Meena Garments, Hindu, aged about 46 years, having office at 31/6, Vaiyapuri Nagar 1st Cross, Karur - 639 002.

3. In the Short Cause Title & in the Docket, modify the defendant's description of M/s.T.M.International duly represented by its Proprietrix M.Thenmozhi as M.Thenmozhi W/o.MeenakshiSundaram Proprietor M/s.T.M.International

4. In the Long Cause Title, modify the defendant's description of M/s.T.M.International duly represented by its Proprietrix M.Thenmozhi W/o.Meenakshi Sundaram as M.Thenmozhi W/o.Meenakschi Sundaram Proprietor M/s.T.M.International, Hindu, aged about 48 years, and having office at No.11, Mahan Gandhi Road, Sellur, Madurai - 625 002."

The Court below vide order dated 04.07.2024 allowed the IA. Questioning the same, this Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner raised two contentions. He pointed out that a proprietary concern is not a legal entity and that the suit filed in its name is not maintainable. He also pointed that even if the amendment order is sustained, the amendment should come into effect from the date when the amendment was ordered. He drew my attention to Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the judgments reported in 2001 SAR (Civil) 327 (Ramalingam Chettiar vs. P.K.Pattabiraman & Another) and (2005) 4 M.L.J 4 (Manonmaniammal & Others vs. Dr.Duraikannu & Others). He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order is well reasoned and that it does not warrant interference.

5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

6. It is true that a proprietary concern is not a legal entity which can sue in its own name and thus a suit instituted in its name is not maintainable. Order 30 Rule 10 of CPC provides that any person carrying on business in a name or style other than his own name may be sued in such name or style as if it were a firm name. In other words, a proprietary concern can be a defendant by itself. But Order 30 Rule 10 CPC does not enable a person carrying on business in a name or style other than in his own name to sue in such name or style. It means that the proprietary concern by itself cannot be the plaintiff. (Judgment dated 15.06.2017 in C.S.No.150 of 2011 (M/S.ESS EMM ENTERPRISES (A Proprietorship concern) vs. M/s.Shell India Markets Private Limited & Another).

7. In Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal v. M.S.S.Food Products (2012)2 SCC 196, the title of the plaintiff was described as follows:

"The plaint filed by the plaintiff describes the title of the plaintiff as follows:

"Messrs M.S.S. Food Products,

Plot No. D, Sector E,

Sanver Road Industrial Area, Indore,

Through -Proprietor -Nilesh Vadhwani,

Son of Shri Ashok Vadhwani, aged 27 years,

Occupation -Business."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such description of the plaintiff in the plaint at best may be called to be not in proper order inasmuch as the of "Nilesh Vadhwani" must have preceded the business name in the title, and that it was not an illegality which went to the root of the matter.

8. In Executive Engineer v. Mousvy Industries Budgam, (202