Receiver's authority to sue and correction of misdescription did not affect limitation; concurrent findings of sale were left undisturbed.

Concurrent findings that the transaction amounted to a sale were treated as findings of fact, and no exceptional circumstance justified a further reappraisal of the evidence. A court-appointed Receiver authorised to collect debts was held competent to institute a suit in his own name for that purpose, because the authority to collect debts was wide enough to include legal proceedings. Correction of the plaintiff's description was treated as a mere misdescription, so it did not create a fresh cause of action or affect limitation. The decree was reduced, and the respondent was entitled only to the smaller amount with interest at the rate finally fixed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court should interfere with the concurrent findings that the transaction was a sale and not a mere arrangement for delivery of goods against a foreign contract; (ii) Whether the suit instituted by the Receiver was competent in law and whether the later amendment correcting the plaintiff's description affected limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the Court should interfere with the concurrent findings that the transaction was a sale and not a mere arrangement for delivery of goods against a foreign contract.

Analysis: The concurrent findings of the courts below on the nature of the transaction were findings of fact. No exceptional circumstance justified a third reappraisal of the evidence. The entries in the account books and verification register were treated by the courts below as supporting a sale, and the surrounding circumstances did not make the case unusual enough to warrant interference.

Conclusion: The Court declined to disturb the finding that the transaction was a sale.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit instituted by the Receiver was competent in law and whether the later amendment correcting the plaintiff's description affected limitation.

Analysis: A Receiver authorised by the court to collect debts may, in the interests of effective administration of property in custodia legis, institute proceedings in his own name in that capacity. An authority to collect debts was treated as wide enough to include instituting a suit for that purpose. The later correction of the cause title was treated as a case of misdescription, which did not create a fresh cause of action or attract limitation.

Conclusion: The suit as instituted was competent, and the amendment did not render it time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The decree was reduced, and the respondent was held entitled only to the smaller amount with interest at the rate finally fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A Receiver authorised to collect debts may institute a suit in his own name in that capacity, and a mere misdescription of the plaintiff can be corrected without affecting limitation; concurrent findings of fact will not ordinarily be re-examined absent exceptional circumstances.

---