Bona fide misdescription of plaintiff can be corrected under Order I Rule 10; substantive rights should not fail on technicality.

Recognition of a school under the U.P. Basic Education Act, coupled with registration of the property in its name, supported its competence to institute eviction proceedings through its Manager, and the objection to maintainability failed. Even if the suit had been filed in the wrong name, Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code permits bona fide mistakes in the plaintiff's description or identity to be corrected by substitution or amendment, so that substantive rights are not defeated on technical grounds. The proper course was to allow correction and decide the matter on merits rather than disturb the eviction decrees.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the school, as a recognised institution and registered owner of the property, had legal competence to institute eviction proceedings in its own name through its Manager; (ii) whether, even if the suit had been instituted in the wrong name, the court ought to have permitted amendment or substitution of the proper plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code instead of quashing the decrees.

Issue (i): whether the school, as a recognised institution and registered owner of the property, had legal competence to institute eviction proceedings in its own name through its Manager.

Analysis: Recognition under the U.P. Basic Education Act conferred legal status on the school, and the exemption under section 2(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 supported its position as an institution entitled to protect property used for its purposes. The property stood in the school's name, and the school was treated as entitled to protect its interest in the property and maintain proceedings against tenants. The Court also noted that the suits had been instituted through Dr. Om Prakash, who was both the Manager of the school and the Secretary of the registered society, and therefore the objection based on want of competence was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The school was competent to institute the eviction suits, and the objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): whether, even if the suit had been instituted in the wrong name, the court ought to have permitted amendment or substitution of the proper plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code instead of quashing the decrees.

Analysis: Order I Rule 10 is intended to cure bona fide mistakes in the description or identity of the plaintiff and to ensure that justice is not defeated on technical grounds. The Court applied the settled principle that even where a suit has been filed in the name of the wrong plaintiff, the court may substitute or add the proper plaintiff if the mistake is bona fide and the real dispute can be adjudicated. On that footing, the High Court ought to have allowed the correction and proceeded to decide the writ petitions on merits rather than setting aside the decrees and remitting the matters.

Conclusion: The proper course was to allow amendment or substitution under Order I Rule 10, and the High Court's contrary approach was erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The eviction decrees were not to be disturbed on the technical objection raised, and the matter was to proceed after correction of the plaintiff's description so that the writ petitions could be decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A court should not defeat substantive rights on a technical defect in the description or identity of the plaintiff where the mistake is bona fide and the real party in interest is already before the court or can be brought on record under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

---