Knox and Aikman, JJ.
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was a suit brought by one Ganesha Singh against a defendant whom he describes as the Mundi Forest Company through W. Martin Towell, partner and agent, resident of camp Umballa. A written statement was put in signed by one E.W. Graham Roe, who describes himself as agent, Mundi Forest Company, Aligarh. That written statement was filed on the 10th of September 1897. It is admitted on both sides that before that date W. Martin Towell had died and there has been no application even up to the present date to bring any person on the record in his place. The written statement put in sets out that the Mundi Forest Company is not a legal corporation, and it has not been registered under Act No. VI of 1882, and on that ground it was pleaded that the suit would not lie. The learned Subordinate Judge sustained the plea and dismissed the suit. In appeal before us it is contended that the learned Subordinate Judge should before dismissing the suit have given the appellant an opportunity to amend the plaint.
2. The amendment, which, it is contended, should have been allowed, is the addition of a statement that the plaintiff was unable to discover the names and addresses of the individual members of the Mundi Forest Company. The object of inserting this amendment is to rely upon an expression of opinion (sic) the case of Koylash Chunder Roy v. Mr. Edward Ellis, Manager on behalf of the Bengal Indigo Company of Khalbolia Factory (1867) 8 W.R., C.R., 45. In that case Sir Barnes Peacock held 'that in case of unregistered companies the proper course would be to sue the individual members in the same way as the individual members of any other firm, not being incorporated or registered, would have to be sued, but where it appeared that the plaintiff did not know of what persons the company in question is composed, he was of opinion that the plaintiff might sue the company in the name under which they were carrying on their business and contracted with him, provided he had stated in the plaint that he was unable to give any better description of the defendants than that.' This view, so far as we can ascertain, does not appear to have been acted upon in any reported case, and it is opposed to what was said by this Court in the case of N.W.P. Club through G.B. Goyder v. Sadulla (1898) I.L.R. 20 All. 497. We quote the following words from the judgment:--' The question remains as to whether the action can rightly be said to have been brought against the North-Western Provinces Club; that is what the case mentioned above calls an abstract entity unknown to the law. To hold that an action lay against it and to give judgment in such action would be to hold that an action lay against a great number of individuals who had not been cited in the action, who had no opportunity of appearing, but who should have been so cited, and who should have had such opportunity given to them to appear and contest the action.' We cannot therefore sustain the contention raised. The learned vakil went on to ask that he might be granted permission to amend by adding the names of such of the partners as he could asoertain. Even if we were disposed to grant the prayer, there would still be a fatal objection that the suit as against every person who might now be added, even if he were added to-day would be barred by limitation. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.