1922 Present: Bertram C.J. and Ennis J.

 RAMEN CHETTY v. MACKWOOD, LTD.

77-D. C. Kegalla, 5,781.

Action against agents of an estate for money advanced to superintendent- Motion to . add proprietors as added defendants-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 14 and 18-Numerous proprietors out of the Island-Service of summons-Application by plaintiff to appoint some one proprietor to defend the action on behalf of all-Names of several proprietors unknown-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 16, 25, and 65.

Plaintiff sued the defendant company, who were agents of Cottangala estate, for the recovery of money advanced to the superintendent for the benefit of the estate. The defendant company denied responsibility. Plaintiff thereupon moved to add the proprietors as defendants.
 
Held, that the cause of action against the defendant company and the proprietors were the same, and that the proprietors might be added as defendants.

Both the, defendant company and the proprietors could have been joined originally .under section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 18 must be construed as enabling an addition to be made of any party who might, for the purpose of determining the cause of action, have been originally joined under section 14.

The co-proprietors of the estate were numerous, and the defendant company did not know who most of them were. The Supreme Court gave permission to the plaintiff to make an application for the joinder of such of the proprietors as he may nominate, and for leave to sue them as representing themselves and the other co-proprietors under section 18. Notice was also directed to be given to all the proprietors by advertisement in the papers.

The application for the appointment of certain persons to sue or to be sued in a representative capacity, under section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, need not proceed from those persons themselves. It may be made by persons seeking to sue them, and even in the face of the opposition of a person sought to be made

representative. It is not necessary in an application for this -purpose to specify by name all the persons to be represented. It is sufficient to describe them generally, and leave them, if necessary, to be subsequently ascertained.

THE facts appear from the judgment.

Samarawickreme (with him Canakaratne), for the appellant.

Hayley, for the respondent,

October 6, 1922. BERTRAM C.J.-

This is an appeal against an order of the District Court of Kegalla refusing an application by the plaintiff for the joinder of certain parties as defendants. The plaintiff is a Chetty, who made certain advances to one Lloyd Perera, who was at the time the superintendent of Cottangala estate. He claims that those advances were made in pursuance of an authority granted to the said Lloyd Perera by the defendant company who are the agents of the estate, and that the defendant company acquiesced in those advances, and that they were so advanced for the benefit of the estate. On those grounds he sues the defendant company. The defendant company by their answer plead that the plaint discloses no cause of action against them. They admit that they are the agents of Cottangala estate, but deny that they are In any way responsible for any liabilities incurred on behalf of the estate. They also traverse generally the allegations of the plaintiff. On this answer being filed, the plaintiff sought to add as defendants the proprietors of the estate, to whose existence the answer had drawn. fuller attention, and it was for this purpose that an application Was made to the Court below. The plaint in the action, which seeks to fix the defendant company with liability, is certainly open to criticism, and if it means to charge them with liability on the ground that they are the local agents of a principal outside the jurisdiction, it clearly ought to have been made more explicit. But this is a point with which it is not necessary to concern