Amendment of pleadings under CPC is permissible to correct misdescription, and does not invite limitation issues if done to clarify parties intended to be sued.

1. The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.308 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirupur. He has filed the suit for recovery of money against the defendants who were described as follows -
1.The Manager, Sri Balaji Transport Lines, Mumbai
2.The Branch Manager, Sri Balaji Transport Lines, Tirupur
3.The Branch Manager, Sri Balaji Roadways, Ahmedabad  

2. Pending the trial of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under O.6 R.17 CPC for amending the plaint to delete the words "Manager" and "Branch Manager" as mentioned before the names of the Transport Companies and after the names of the companies, to be described as follows -
(1)Represented by Partner Kutty S/o Madhavan Nair
(2)Represented by Partner Parimalam
(3)Represented by Partner Jeevanandham  
He has also sought for certain amendments in the body of the plaint wherever the words "Manager" and "Branch Manager" occur as mentioned above.  

3. In the affidavit, he has alleged that at the time of filing of the suit, the defendant's names were described mistakenly by typographical error in the short title and in the long cause title as "Manager" prior to the names of the defendant companies, that they have to be deleted and instead the words "Manager" and "Branch Manager", the defendant's transport companies have to be shown as represented through their Managing Partners.  

4. The above said petition was resisted by the respondents / defendants by filing counter by stating that on 06.11.2002, the suit was filed, mentioning the Manager and Branch Manager of the transport companies as defendants, that the suit was initially not filed against the transport companies through their partners, that the Managing Directors were not impleaded at the inception, that there is no connection between the first and second defendants on one part and third defendants on the other, that four years after the filing of the suit, the petition came to be filed and hence the claim is barred by limitation and hence the petition may be dismissed.  

5. After hearing both sides, the learned District Munsif, Tirupur allowed the application for amendment in part, directing the amendment to take effect from the date of filing of the petition. Aggrieved at the above said observation, the petitioner / plaintiff is before this Court with this revision.  

6. At the outset, the Managers of the three transport companies were impleaded as the defendants. When the description of the defendants mentioned in the small cause title and long cause title are considered, it appears that only the Manager of the first defendant and Branch Managers of the second and third defendants have been impleaded as parties and the claim has been made against them as if they are liable to pay the money. Presently, the petitioners sought to amend the plaint so as to make the transport companies themselves liable to pay the money and prayed that they have to be represented through their Managing Partners. The suit was filed on 06.11.2002 and the written statement was filed on 04.12.2003. The amendment application was filed on 25.08.2006, admittedly after the lapse of over three years. Hence, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the respondents Mr.I.C.Vasudevan that the amendment application is time barred and no relief could be granted to the plaintiff.  

7. Contending contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Marudhachalamurthy would submit that no question of operation of limitation would arise in this case. He placed much reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1955 Mad. 294 [ Mura Mohideen v. V.O.A. M