Formal misdescription in pleadings does not defeat eviction suit where real owners were entitled to sue and no prejudice was caused.

A suit for eviction was not rendered non-maintainable merely because the real owners, substituted after the original plaintiff's death, were described as heirs rather than owners. The Supreme Court noted that the suit had been prosecuted by persons entitled to sue in their own right, and the objection concerned only the form of description in the pleadings and cause title. That misdescription was a formal error, caused no prejudice, and did not affect the merits or jurisdiction. Under Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and with the possibility of correction under Order 1 Rule 10, the decree could not be disturbed on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit for eviction became not maintainable because the plaintiffs, who were the real owners and had been substituted on the death of the original plaintiff, were described in the proceedings as heirs instead of owners, and whether such wrong description was merely an error, defect or irregularity not affecting the merits or jurisdiction of the court.

Analysis: The suit had been instituted and prosecuted by persons who, on the admitted facts, were entitled to sue in their own right. The only objection was to the form of description in the pleadings and cause title. Such a defect did not alter the substantive entitlement to relief, did not affect the merits of the controversy, and caused no prejudice to the defendant. The governing principle under Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is that no decree is to be reversed or substantially varied for an error, defect or irregularity not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court. A formal misdescription could have been corrected under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and could not be treated as rendering the suit not maintainable.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed; the wrong description was only a formal irregularity and did not defeat the suit. The finding against the plaintiffs was unsustainable and the decree of the trial court ought not to have been disturbed on that ground.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree cannot be reversed for a merely formal misdescription or similar procedural irregularity that does not affect the merits of the case, the jurisdiction of the court, or cause prejudice to the opposite party.

---