Misdescription of plaintiff name may be amended and relate back, preserving the suit against a limitation defence.

A plaint filed in a business name was treated as a misdescription of the existing plaintiff, not a nullity, because procedural rules are meant to advance justice and amendments should ordinarily be allowed where they help determine the real controversy and cause no irremediable prejudice. The correction was therefore permissible. Once the filing was regarded as a correction of description rather than substitution of a new plaintiff or cause, the amendment related back to the original institution of the suit, so limitation did not bar the claim. The technical dismissal was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaint filed in the business name was only a misdescription of the real plaintiff and could be amended to substitute the proper name; (ii) whether the amendment, if allowed, related back to the date of the original suit so as to avoid limitation.

Issue (i): whether the plaint filed in the business name was only a misdescription of the real plaintiff and could be amended to substitute the proper name;

Analysis: Rules of procedure are intended to advance justice and amendments should ordinarily be allowed unless they are mala fide or cause irremediable prejudice to the opposite side. Where the name used in the plaint is not that of a non-existent person but is merely a defective description of the existing plaintiff, the defect is one of misdescription and not a nullity. The decisive inquiry is whether the amendment is needed to determine the real controversy between the parties and whether the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

Conclusion: The amendment was permissible and the original plaint was only a misdescription of the real plaintiff.

Issue (ii): whether the amendment, if allowed, related back to the date of the original suit so as to avoid limitation.

Analysis: Once the plaint is treated as a misdescription of the true plaintiff, the amendment does not introduce a new cause or a new plaintiff but only corrects the form of description. In that situation, the suit must be treated as instituted on the original date, and limitation cannot defeat the claim merely because the correction was made later.

Conclusion: The amendment related back to the original institution of the suit and the plea of limitation failed.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's technical dismissal was set aside, the amendment was upheld, and the matter was sent back for decision on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment correcting the description of an existing plaintiff is permissible when it serves the real controversy and causes no irremediable prejudice, and such correction ordinarily relates back to the original filing date.

---