IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.4720/2008 Date of Decision: 18.5.2009. Prem Chand ..........Petitioner. Versus Gian Devi and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.R.S.Tacoria,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff praying for setting aside the order dated 25.7.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Hansi, dismissing his suit qua defendant-respondent no.1 Gian Devi, under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC. Briefly the facts are that petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from raising any kacha or pacca construction on the suit property detailed in the head note of the plaint. In nut shell, the main contesting defendant was Gian Devi-respondent no.1 herein. A perusal of the zimni orders reproduced in the body of the revision petition reveals that the summons issued to said Gian Devi-defendant no.1 for 9.5.2008 were not received back served or otherwise and accordingly fresh summons were ordered to be issued to said defendant for 9.6.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel for the petitioner, despite last opportunity summons could not be issued to CR NO.4720/2008 2 defendant no.1 for want of supply of copy of plaint and RC by the trial court counsel and it is for this reason that the impugned order dated 25.7.2008 came to be passed by the learned trial Court whereby suit of the plaintiff qua defendant no.1 Gian Devi was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC. It is urged that petitioner should not be made to suffer due to inadvertent mistake on the part of his counsel before the trial court. Vide order dated 4.9.2008 passed by this Court, notice of motion was issued only qua respondent no.1-Gian Devi. As per office report respondent no.1 had refused to accept summons, however, she was served by way of affixation. Despite that no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.1. In view of the uncontroverted stand of the petitioner-plaintiff and further the fact that the petitioner-plaintiff had on earlier occasion deposited process fee for service upon defendant no.1 for 9.5.2008 and therefore, there was no lack of bona fide on his part, this Court is of the opinion that prayer made in the present revision petition deserves to be accepted. Accordingly the present revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.7.2008, so far as it dismissed suit of the petitioner-plaintiff qua defendant no.1 under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to furnish fresh process fee and copy of the plaint, within two weeks from today. On his doing so, fresh summons for effecting service upon defendant no.1 be issued for a date to be fixed by the trial Court. 18.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge