AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 225 wordsArvind Singh Chandel, J
A default has been pointed out by the Registry regarding maintainability of this civil revision.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 14.11.2017, whereby the Court below has dismissed the plaint preferred by the Applicant under
Order 9 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It is submitted by Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that substituted service through paper publication was ordered for defendant No.11
vide order dated 6.10.2012. On 3.12.2012, report of service through paper publication on defendant No.11 was submitted before the Court below.
Thereafter, on 22.1.2013, a memo of appearance was submitted on behalf of defendant No.11 and on 7.3.2013, a Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of
defendant No.11. Thereafter, after a long gap, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit under Order 9 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the
ground that despite the order of the Court, no process fee was paid for service of notice on defendant No.11.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission put-forth, the revision is disposed of with a direction that the
Applicant/plaintiff shall be allowed to file an appropriate application under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Trial Court for
setting aside the dismissal of his suit.