An unincorporated members' club is not a legal entity that can be sued in its own name.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for amendment of the plaint and also for order for leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code to sue the proposed defendants as representing all the members of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club, and for consequential reliefs. The plaintiff instituted this suit on January 22, 1963 against the Royal Calcutta Turf Club inter alia, for a declaration that the notice dated January 28, 1957 alleged in the plaint is bad, void and of no legal effect, and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to enter Calcutta Race Course of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club as well as other race courses at other places having reciprocal arrangements and for an injunction restraining the Club and/or its officials or agents or servants from interfering with the petitioner's right to enter the race course, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the Club and/or its officials or agents or servants from giving effect to the notice dated January 28, 1957. The petitioner's case in the plaint, in short is that he pledged two horses to a member of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club. The two horses were auctioned by the Club and the pledgee had to render an account and pay sums due to the petitioner. The pledgee failed to pay the petitioner's dues and a complaint was lodged under the Rules of the Club. An enquiry was ordered by the Stewards. On January 28, 1957 the Stewards informed the petitioner that he had been warned off as he was guilty of corrupt practices. The order appeared in the Racing Calendar dated February 14, 1957. The petitioners allegation is that he was never furnished with any charge or informed of any rule and the order dated January 28, 1957 that the petitioner committed a breach of the Racing Rules is impeached by the petitioner as illegal and void.

( 2 ) THE suit is instituted against the Royal Calcutta Turf Club. In paragraph 20 of the petition the petitioner alleges that he was all along under the impression that the Royal Calcutta Turf Club is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. In paragraph 21 it is alleged that on March 15, 1963 the petitioner's solicitor was served with a copy of Chamber summons dated March 15, 1963, and the petitioner has come to know from the affidavit in support of the said summons that the society is not registered under the Societies Registration Act.

( 3 ) IN paragraph 22 of the petition the petitioner alleges that the misdescription of the defendant came to the petitioner's knowledge on or about May 8, 1963 for the first time. In paragraph 23 the petitioner states that he has been advised to rectify the misdescription. In paragraph 24 the petitioner states that the amendments are absolutely necessary for adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.

( 4 ) COUNSEL appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the cause title suffered from misdescription in relation to the defendants and submitted that such misdescription was curable by amendments. Counsel for the petitioner relied on a Bench decision Municipal Commrs, 'dacca v. Gangamani Chaudhurani reported in AIR 1940 Cal 153 and a Bombay decision Harishchandra Khunderao v. A. B. Craig, reported in AIR 1945 Bom 465 in support of the proposition that a misdescription of the nature in the present case could be amended. In the Calcutta decision a suit was 'instituted for a declaration that the assessment made by the municipal commissioners was ultra vires and illegal. The suit was instituted against the Chairman of the municipal commissioners instead of the commissioners themselves as required by Section 15 of the Bengal Municipal Act of 1932. It was held that it was a case of misdescription which could be corrected. The plaintiff's Intention to sue the commissioners was manifest and that is why the suit against the Chairman of the commissioners was found to be a misdescription for the commissioners, who were the real parties. There is an observation in the decision to the effect that the