SRIPATI SARAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. INDARJIT MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three applications for revision of the order of the Munsif of Bihar declining to restore three rent suits under Order 9, Rule 4, Civil P.C. The plaintiff was called upon to file process-fees and copies of the plaint by 16 November 1937, but on that date nothing had been done. The suits were accordingly dismissed.

(2.) The order of the Munsif was dllegal because he has no power to require a plaintiff to file process-fees before fixing a date for the appearance of the defendant. The plaintiff may elect, if he pleases to secure the presence of the defendant without issue of process at all; but if by the date fixed for the defendant's appearance, the defendant does not appear and the plaintiff has not paid process-fees and taken the necessary steps for issue of process, the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 9, Rule 2. The proper order on 1 October 1937, would have been an order fixing a date for the appearance of the defendant and directing the plaintiff to file process-fee within a reasonable period short of that date.

(3.) The suit could not have been dismissed on the-date fixed for filing the process-fees; but if the plaintiff had defaulted, the suit could then have been dismissed on the date fixed for the defendant's appearance; if the defendant had failed to appear. The orders of the Munsif must be set aside and the suits restored. These applications are allowed.