NORATA RAM BAL KRISHAN Vs. BASTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dt. 5th May, 1984, whereby application under O.9 R.4 C.P.C. for setting aside the order dt. 29th Mar. 1983 was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1000/-. The Court directed the plaintiff to file duplicate summons on 29th Nov. 1982 and again on 31st Jan. 1983. In spite of these orders the plaintiff failed to file the duplicate summons. Consequently on 29th Mar. 1983 the trial Court dismissed the suit under O.9 R.2 C.P.C. for non-compliance of the provision of O.7 R.9 sub-rule (1-A) of the Civil P.C. Later on the plaintiff moved an application under O.9 R.4 C.P.C. for setting aside the said order dt. 29th Mar. 1983. Notice of this application was served on the defendant and he contested the same. The main contention of the plaintiff was that he was under no obligation to file the duplicate summons as directed by the trial Court, and, therefore, the suit could not be dismissed under O.9 R.2 C.P.C. However, the trial Court took the view that unless and until the order passed by the Court is set aside, the plaintiff was bound to comply with the same and on account of the non-compliance the suit was rightly dismissed under O.9 R.2 C.P.C. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same the plaintiff-petitioner has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) In the grounds of revision the main contention raised was that the order directing the petitioner to file duplicate summons was not provided under the Civil P.C. However, this contention is not available to the petitioner in view of the notification dated 10th Feb. 1982 issued by the High Court, whereby sub-rule(1-A) of R.9 of O.7 C.P.C. was substituted, which reads as under :