PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 25/5/2016 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner qua defendant No.5 (respondent No.1 herein) for want of providing fresh address and the order dtd. 7/3/2017 whereby application for restoration of the suit qua defendant-respondent No.1 was also dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction for directing defendant- respondent Nos.2 to 4 to restore the possession of 4 ft. wide street as described in the plaint, as also for mandatory injunction directing defendant- respondent No.5 to restore the possession of 4 ft. wide street as described in detail in the plaint and further for mandatory injunction directing defendant- respondent No.1 herein to restore the possession of 4 ft. wide street as described in the plaint. Vide order dtd. 25/5/2016, as no written statement was filed on behalf of defendant-respondent Nos.2 to 5, their defence was struck off. It is noticed in the order that correct address of defendant- respondent No.1 herein had not been filed and that the plaintiff-petitioner address for service of defendant-respondent No.1 and hence the suit was dismissed against defendant-respondent No.1 for non-prosecution. Subsequently, an application for restoration of the suit qua defendant- respondent No.1 was filed which application was also dismissed vide order dtd. 7/3/2017. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that as per Order IX Rule 2 CPC, a suit can be dismissed if summons are not served in consequence of plaintiff's failure to pay costs, however, for not supplying the fresh correct address the suit cannot be dismissed. In support of his argument he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab Tractors Ltd. vs. M/s Premier Cotton Industries [1991(1) LJR 227].