Misdescription of plaintiffs in a joint family suit can be corrected by amendment when existing persons were intended.

A plaint that names a Hindu joint family by its family name may be amended to substitute the names of the individual members where the original description in substance identifies existing persons rather than a non-existent plaintiff. The defect is treated as misdescription, which can ordinarily be corrected by amendment, and Order XXX, Rule 1 CPC does not control that factual inquiry. The amendment was therefore permitted, although the plaintiffs' delay warranted heavy costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave should be granted to amend the plaint by substituting the names of the members of a Hindu joint family for the family name under which the suit had been instituted, and whether the original description amounted to a misdescription of existing persons rather than a suit by a non-existent entity.

Analysis: The description under which the suit was filed was held to refer to existing persons and not to a non-existent plaintiff. Where the name used in the plaint substantially identifies the persons actually before the Court, the defect is one of misdescription and can ordinarily be corrected by amendment. Order XXX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was held to regulate when a suit may be brought in a firm name, but it did not determine the factual question whether the plaint described existing persons incorrectly. Since the amendment merely corrected the plaintiffs' description, it was permissible, though the plaintiffs' delay justified imposing heavy costs.

Conclusion: Leave to amend was granted, the dismissal of the suit was set aside, and the amendment was allowed on terms as to costs.

---