1. It appears that this suit which was one for rent wasoriginally brought in the name of Mr. Stevens as the authorized manager ofBajah Ganoda Kant Boy Bahadur and others. At a later stage in the suit anamendment was made by striking out Mr. Stevens and substituting his employersas plaintiffs in the case. We must presume that to have been done on sufficientmaterials under the express provisions of Section 27 of the Code of CivilProcedure, under which section, if a suit is brought in the name of the wrongperson as plaintiff, the name of the right person may be substituted, providedthe conditions of the section are complied with. It is said, however, that thatchange was made at such a time that, if the suit had been then brought for thefirst time in the names of the proper persons, it would have been barred bylimitation, and the suggestion is that therefore this suit is barred. Theanswer to that is that this suit is the original suit and was brought in time;tee change of parties as plaintiffs does not affect the question of limitation.There is a difference between substituting a new person as plaintiff underSection 27 and the addition of anew person as a defendant to a suit. Section 32expressly says, speaking of defendants, that the proceedings as against themshall, for the purposes of the Limitation Act, be deemed to have begun only onthe service of summons, that is the summons servable on the added defendants.There is no such provision as regards persons who are made plaintiffs underSection 27. This point therefore fails.

2. We dismiss this appeal with costs.

.

Cumar Ganoda Kant Roy Bahadur and Ors. vs. Subodini Debi(02.03.1887 - CALHC)