Civil Revision No. 6169 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6169 of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.8.2009 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another ......Petitioners Versus Vipul Virmani .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Anil Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 7.6.2008 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the suit of the present petitioners was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC for the reason that the plaintiffs have not filed correct address; copies of plaint as well as summons. The plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs.7032/- on account of outstanding bill of the telephone against the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the summons were served upon the wife of the defendant, and in view of the provisions of Order 5 Rule 15 CPC, such service is proper. But still the learned trial Court directed that the defendant to be served again. It is contended that the provisions of Order 9 Rule 2 are Civil Revision No. 6169 of 2008 (2) directory in nature, therefore, in case of any default in filing copies of the plaint or summons, the suit could not have been dismissed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is patently illegal. Once the defendant was served through an adult member of his family i.e., his wife, on the address given in the cause title of the plaint, there was no occasion to issue a fresh summons to the defendant. Similarly, copies of the plaint were filed, which led to service of summons upon the wife of the defendant. Non filing of the summons is a ministerial act for which the suit could not have been dismissed. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court leads to failure of justice and cannot be sustained. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.6.2008 is set aside and the suit is restored to its original number. Petitioners, through, their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court for further proceedings on 5.10.2009. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 26.8.2009 ds