1. We think this appeal must succeed upon a single point. The suit was brought by Mr. J.A. Jackson, as Manager of the Jokai Division of the Jokai Assam Tea Company, Limited There is no doubt that the plaintiff on the record is Mr. Jackson, who is described as the Manager of the Jokai Division of the Jokai Assam Tea Company. The plaintiff on the record is not the Jokai ASsam Tea Company; and in saying this we do not overlook paras. 2 and 7 of the plaint which speak of ' the plaintiff-company.'The law on the subject is very simple, and it is to be found in Section 435 of the Civil Procedure Code.' In miits by a corporation, or by a company authorized to sue and be sued in the name of an officer or of a trustee, the plaint may be subscribed and verified on behalf of the Corporation or Company, by any Director, Secretary, or other principal officer of the Corporation or Company, who is able to depose to the facts of the case.' Now, there is no suggestion in this case that this Company is a company authorized to sue or be sued in the name of an officer or trustee. Such authority could only be conferred by Act of Parliament or by an Act of the Indian Legislature. There are some Acts in the Indian Statute Books by which certain companies are authorized to sue and be sued in the name of an officer, but no authority has been shown for holding that this Company is one of them. Then the word 'Corporation' is used with reference to Section 41 of the Indian Companies Act. Under that section, when a Company has been registered, the Registrar is to certify under his hand the fact of such incorporation. The effect is that a Company which has been duly registered under the Indian Companies Act of 1882, is a Corporation, and being a Corporation, although the suit must be brought in the registered name of the Company, the plaint may be verified by a Secretary, Director or other principal officer, etc. If the present suit had been brought in the name of the Jokai Assam Tea Company, and if that Company had been registered under the Indian Companies Act, and if Mr. Jackson, as an officer of the Company, had verified the plaint, the procedure would have been correct. But the suit has not been brought in the name of the Company. It is brought in the name of Mr. Jackson. Even if we could so construe the plaint as to treat the suit as a suit by the Company, there is nothing to show that the Company has been registered under the Indian Companies Act, and is therefore entitled to have the plaint verified by a principal officer on behalf of the Company.
2. We think, therefore, that this suit must fail. The appeal will be decreed but without costs, as we find that the point was abandoned in the Court below.
3. The defendant will get his costs in both the Courts below.