NPR FINANCE LIMITED Vs. DEEPAK JHUNJHUNWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two suits are almost identical save the identity of the plaintiffs and the amounts claimed on account of money lent and advanced. The defendant in either case has applied for dismissal of the suit on the ground that no writ of summons was served within reasonable time by the plaintiff. It is submitted on behalf of the two plaintiffs that a judgment on the one matter would govern the other.

(2.) The plaints in the two suits were presented on March 28, 2003 and March 23, 2003, respectively. The writ of summons in the later suit was issued on March 25, 2009; in the earlier suit it was issued on April 1, 2003. By orders of the Master dated February 24, 2009 the returnable dates of the writs of summons were extended. On March 23, 2009 the defendant was served the writs of summons in both suits. The petitions have been filed in the beginning of April, 2009.

(3.) The defendant says that the plaintiffs took no steps after the institution of the suits for ensuring that the writ of summons in either case was served on the defendant. The defendant has also questioned the propriety of the ex parte orders of February 24, 2009 passed by the Master. The defendant asserts that these petitions be also treated as appeals from the orders dated February 24, 2009 passed by the Master. The defendant says that it was the bounden duty of the plaintiffs to cause service of the writ of summons, accompanied with copies of the plaints, within a reasonable time of the institution of the suits and the failure to discharge such responsibility without any justifiable cause should result in the dismissal of the claims.