The addition of a new plaintiff after the institution of a suit is governed by Section 22(1) of the Limitation Act, which provides that the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted as regards the new plaintiff when he was made a party.

JUDGMENT : This is an appeal by the defendants arising out of a suit in the following circumstances. The suit was original by brought on 11-3-50 by 'Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, Ram Nagar , District Naini Tal, plaintiffs to recover a sum of Rs. 10,139/12/ from the defendants purporting to be the balance of sale price of timber purchased by the defendants from the plaintiffs on 10-3-47 and delivered to the defendants on 10-6-47.

2. One of the objections taken by the defendants in their written statement was that the plaintiff firm was not registered under the Indian Partnership Act, and as such, the suit was not maintainable; and that, at any rate, the suit was barred under the provisions of Order XXX, Civil P.C.

3. After the lodging of the written statement, an amendment application was moved on behalf of the plaintiffs on 18-7-52 saying that the plaintiffs were joint family business, in which "Jai Jai Ram is the father and Manohar Lal is the son. The business name of the plaintiffs is Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lah". It was further stated that

''Manohar Lal has signed and verified the plaint as owner and proprietor and it was with Manohar Lal as owner and proprietor that the defendant too had been having dealings. There should thus be no difficulty as envisaged and objected to by the defendants, ............ with a view to avoid any future difficulty on this mere technicality, it is prayed that ............... in the heading of the suit ............ before the words 'Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, Ramnagar, (the words) "Manohar Lal Malik" may kindly be added, and that in para 1 of the plaint between the words 'Yeh ki muddai' and 'Karobar Arhat lakri' the words "Aznam Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal" may kindly be added."

4. The aforesaid amendment application was allowed by the trial court by its order D/-18-07-52, and the amendment was made in the plaint on that very date. It is note-worthy that the amendment application does not state that it was due to some bona fide mistake or omission that the suit had been, brought in the name of 'Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal'. On the other hand, the amendment application clearly stated that the amendment was being; sought only 'to avoid any future difficulty on this mere technicality' raised by the defendants. The tone and contents of the amendment application show that it had been moved just to satisfy the whims of the defendants. The opening words of the application suggest that Jai Jai Ram as well as Manohar Lal, who were father and son, were both alive. On the other hand, the deposition of Manohar Lal recorded on 22-9-52 shows that his father Jai Jai Ram had died in the year 1938 or 1939 and that on the date of the institution of the suit, Manohar Lal and his four sons, one of whom was major, were the owners of the joint family business, stated 'Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal."

5. At the trial the defendants had argued that inasmuch as the name of Manohar Lal had been brought on the record by amendment of the plaint on 18-7-52, the suit should be deemed to have been instituted by him on that date, and hence the claim for recovery of the balance price of the timber sold on 10-3-47 was long barred by three years' rule of limitation.

6. The trial Court, however, repelled the contention of the defendants and held that the amendment would take effect retrospectively from the date of the institution of the suit which had been filed on 11-3-50, within three years of the delivery of the goods made on 16-6-47. In the result it decreed the suit for Rs. 6568/6/3. Hence this appeal by the defendants.

7. It has strenuously been urged by Mr. K.C. Agarwal learned counsel for the defendant-appellants that the finding of the Court below on the question of limitation was wholly erroneous and that the suit was clearly barred by limitation. Broadly speaking, his contention is that it was not a case of a mere mis-description of the original plaintiffs and that the effect of the amendment dated 18-7-1952 was to substitute an altogether n