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
5 paragraphs · 220 wordsJ.V. Gupta, ACJ
This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated October 4,1989, whereby the plaintiffs suit was dismissed against defendants Nos. 1 to 9,11 and 14to 18, under Order IX rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter called the Code), as the plaintiff had failed to deposit the process-fee.
This revision petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable proper remedy is provided under rule 4 of Order IX, which reads as under:
"Where a suit is dismissed under Rule 2 or Rule 3 the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit; or he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfied the Court that there was sufficient cause for such failure as is referred to in Rule 2, or for his non-appearance, as the case may be, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit."
Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to make the necessary application in the trial Court on February, 1990, when he has been directed to appear there. If such an application is made, the same will be considered and disposed of on merits in accordance with law.