Suit by or against sole proprietorship

Application for rejection of plaint on ground that the plaintiff, being a sole proprietorship, ought to have instituted proceedings in his personal name and not in the trading name of the proprietorship

Held, that description of a plaintiff given in the title of the plaint must be carefully examined, and if such examination revealed, or could reasonably be regarded as revealing the true identity of the party (that is the proprietor); then the suit must be held to have been brought in the name of the latter

However, if despite such examination, the true identity of plaintiff could not be determined, then it could be said that the suit had been brought by an entity that had no existence in the eye of the law (that is the proprietary concern) and it may be that such suit was to be dismissed or the plaint rejected

In the present case, it was evident from the title of the plaint that the person filing the suit was the sole proprietor whose identity was substantially disclosed and no vested right could be said to have been accrued to the defendant therefore the present case was one of bona fide mis-description to which no limitation could apply and the error could be corrected under S.153, C.P.C.

Plaint therefore, could not be rejected

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Application for rejection of plaint on ground that the plaintiff, being a sole proprietorship, ought to have instituted proceedings in his personal name and not in the trading name of the proprietorship

Held, that description of a plaintiff given in the title of the plaint must be carefully examined, and if such examination revealed, or could reasonably be regarded as revealing the true identity of the party (that is the proprietor); then the suit must be held to have been brought in the name of the latter

However, if despite such examination, the true identity of plaintiff could not be determined, then it could be said that the suit had been brought by an entity that had no existence in the eye of the law (that is the proprietary concern) and it may be that such suit was to be dismissed or the plaint rejected

In the present case, it was evident from the title of the plaint that the person filing the suit was the sole proprietor whose identity was substantially disclosed and no vested right could be said to have been accrued to the defendant therefore the present case was one of bona fide mis-description to which no limitation could apply and the error could be corrected under S.153, C.P.C.

Plaint therefore, could not be rejected

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.