JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff brought this suit for the accounts of a partnership of which he and the Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were members, and for other incidental reliefs. The remaining partner died after the partnership business came to an end but before the suit was brought. It appears that he left two sons, the Defendant No. 3 and the Defendant No. 5. Of these two sons only the Defendant No. 3 was originally impleaded. Objection was taken in the written statement (filed on the 9th August 1909) that the deceased partner was not properly represented. The Plaintiff seems to have been very dilatory and the Defendant No. 5 was not brought on the record till the 29th June 1910. At that date the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit as this had expired. The Courts below have held that inasmuch as all the partners or their representatives were necessary parties and inasmuch as under sec. 22 of the Limitation Act, the suit must, as regards the Defendant No. 5, be deemed to have been instituted when he was made a party, the whole suit is barred by limitation. The short question which arises is whether this view of the matter is correct. We are disposed to agree that in a partnership suit the partners must be made parties or the suit will fail [Ramdoyal v. Junmejoy I. L. R. 14 Cal. 791 (1887), Srinath v. Hari Charan 7 C. L. J. 266 (1907)]. On behalf of the Plaintiff, who is the Appellant before us, reference was made at the bar to Rule 9 of Order I of the Civil Procedure Code. That Rule however, properly understood, does not do away with the necessity for bringing a necessary party on the record [Jogendra v. Secretary of State 16 C. L. J. 385 (1912)]. If a necessary party is not on the record the proper course is to apply to have him joined. If he is not brought on the record at all, or if when he is brought on the record the suit as against him is barred by limitation, the suit will be dismissed. 2. If a necessary party is not on the record the proper course is to apply to have him joined. If he is not brought on the record at all, or if when he is brought on the record the suit as against him is barred by limitation, the suit will be dismissed. 2. It was argued that the deceased partner or his estate was represented, if imperfectly by the Defendant No. 3, that the Defendant No. 5 was brought on the record merely to complete the representation and that in such a case sec. 22 of the Limitation Act would not operate to bar the suit. Reference was made to the case of Peary Mohun v. Narendra Nath 9 C. W. N. 421 : s. c. I. L. R. 32 Cal. 582 (1905): on appeal to P. C. 14 C. W. N. 261 : s. c. I. L. R. 37 Cal. 229 (1909). In that case all the living descendents of the original testator were on the record from the commencement. The quest ion arose which of them should be considered shebait of the debutter estate to which the suit related. That question was determined after the plaint had been amended and the suit proceeded against the Defendant who was found to be shebait. It was held that what was done did not amount to the addition of a new Defendant. 3. We are of opinion with the learned Subordinate Judge that the case is distinguishable from the present case on the facts. The Plaintiff here ough to have impleaded all the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant. He cannot plead ignorance of the existence of the Defendant No. 5. In the absence of that Defendant the estate of the deceased partner was not fully represented. The Courts below appear to us to have taken a correct view of the law and this Appeal must be dismissed with costs.