Substitution of company name in suit cannot be defeated by the death of its director; abatement was not approved.

A company remains a separate legal person and does not cease to exist because the director who represented it has died. The proper issue is whether substitution of the representative or correction of the company's present name in the cause title is required, rather than treating the suit as abated. Technical objections should not defeat substantial justice, and the court's observation that the suit had obviously abated was not approved. The refusal to substitute the name was set aside and the application was remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration, resulting in only partial relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial court was right in refusing to substitute the company's present name in the cause title and in treating the suit as abated on the death of the director who had represented the company.

Analysis: A company is a separate legal person and does not cease to exist because the director through whom it was represented has died. In such a situation, the proper question is whether the name of the person representing the company requires substitution, or whether the company's present name should be brought on record, rather than whether the suit has abated. The court below had some basis for refusing the application on technical grounds, but the observation that the suit had obviously abated was not approved. The matter required consideration in the light of the principles governing substitution and the approach that technical objections should not defeat substantial justice.

Conclusion: The refusal order was set aside and the application was remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration; the petitioner obtained only partial relief.

---