C.R. No. 2217 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2217 of 2011 Date of Decision: March 31, 2011 Shivsharan Dass …..Petitioner Vs. Avtar Singh and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. H.N.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The suit of the plaintiff for joint possession as owner through specific performance of an agreement of sale dated September 8, 2006 has been dismissed qua defendant- respondent No.2 whereas the defendant No.1 had been proceeded against Ex-parte w.e.f. August 17, 2010 by the trial Court, on the ground of munadi fee having not been deposited in compliance with the interim order dated February 2, 2011. C.R. No. 2217 of 2011 [2] Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has submitted that the munadi fee could not be deposited on account of the inadvertence of the counsel as such the plaintiff- petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to get the adjudication of the matter on merits. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner and I am of the opinion that the plaintiff- petitioner, whose suit has been dismissed qua defendant- respondent No.2 under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC has got a right under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC either to bring a fresh suit or to apply for an order to get the dismissal set aside, by satisfying the Court that there was sufficient cause for failure to deposit the munadi fee. In such circumstances, Court can set aside the dismissal of the suit qua defendant- respondent No.2 and appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. This revision petition seems to have been filed without availing the remedy available to the plaintiff- appellant under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC. Revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the plaintiff- petitioner to file an application for restoration of the suit which has been dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC against defendant- respondent No.2. March 31, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE