Misdescription in a partnership plaint can be cured by amendment; substitution of partners is not treated as a new suit.

A plaint filed in the firm name of a partnership carrying on business outside India was treated as a misdescription of the partners, not a nullity. The court reasoned that the firm name operated as a compendious description of the partners collectively, so the defect could be cured by amendment under procedural powers. Substituting the individual partners was therefore not regarded as the addition of new plaintiffs in substance, and limitation did not bar the correction. The authority given to file and verify the plaint was also held sufficient.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaint instituted in the name of a partnership firm carrying on business outside India was a nullity or a misdescription capable of amendment; and whether substitution of the individual partners as plaintiffs was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The firm name was treated as a compendious description of the partners collectively. A suit filed in the firm name, even where Order XXX of the Code of Civil Procedure did not permit suing in the firm name because the business was outside India, was not a suit by a non-existent person. It was a suit by the partners who had merely been imperfectly described. On that basis, the defect was one of misdescription and not of a void plaint. The court held that the proper description could be corrected by amendment under the procedural powers of the court, and the case did not involve the addition or substitution of new parties in substance. The power of attorney authorising Dunderdale to file and verify the plaint was also held sufficient.

Conclusion: The plaint was amendable and the suit was not a nullity. The amendment substituting the names of the partners was permissible and limitation did not defeat the suit on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the High Court was right in treating the original description as a curable misdescription and in allowing the amendment.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint filed in the name of a partnership firm carrying on business outside India is not a nullity if it in substance represents the partners collectively; such a defect is a curable misdescription that may be corrected by amendment without attracting the bar of limitation as the addition of new plaintiffs.

---