The Vyankatesh Oil Mills Co. vs N.V. Velmahomed on 8 July, 1927
6. On behalf of the defendant it is contended that if the amendment is allowed the plaintiff would only be entitled to such relief as he could have claimed if the suit had commenced today. I have been referred to Vyankatesh Oil Mill Co. v. N.V. Velmahomed A.I.R. 1928 Bom. 191 where a point not dissimilar was considered. That was a case where persons carrying on business in partnership, but not within British India, sued under their firm name, which they were not entitled to do under Order 30, Rule 1. The learned Judge took the view that the suit was badly framed from the outset and that the plaintiffs were an entity not recognized by law, and that the amendment asked for could not be treated as an amendment following upon a mere misdescription but as an application for the substitution as plaintiffs of the individual persons who composed the entity which the law did not recognize with this I entirely agree.