ARIJIT BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The Court : GA No.994 of 2016 has been taken out by the plaintiff praying for a direction on the department for issuing a fresh writ of summons for being served upon the defendants and for extension of the returnable date of the writ of summons.
(2.) The suit was instituted in the year 2010. The reasons pleaded for non-service of the writ of summons on the defendants till date are in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the petition, which read as follows: "23. Your petitioner states that from 2010 till 2012 several interlocutory applications were taken out before the Learned interlocutory Court wherein several orders have been passed from time to time as mentioned above. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm having two partners namely, Pradip Kumar Bansal and Alok Bansal. The petitioner firm is, inter alia, in the business of purchasing, selling and trading of various types of tea for the purpose of its business. The representatives of the petitioner in usual course of business have to be present more often than not in the tea garden and/or tea auction centers across the country. Your petitioner having engaged a Learned Advocate reasonably believed that all necessary steps will be taken for protecting the right, title and interest of the petitioner in the instant suit. 24. As such your petitioner was under the bonafide and reasonable belief all along and was under the impression that all possible steps were already taken to protect the petitioner's interest in the instant suit. 25. Your petitioner states that change was taken from the erstwhile Advocate to the present Advocate on August 18, 2015. Thereafter the plaintiff took out an application for amendment of the plaint as during the pendency of the suit the name of the defendant no.1 has changed the said application being GA No.2757 of 2015 is pending."
(3.) Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff relied on its learned Advocates for compliance of all procedural formalities. There were no laches on the part of the plaintiff. Several interlocutory applications have been heard by this Court in connection with the suit. Further the defendants have not approached this Court for dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-service of writ of summons. He submitted that the Courts generally take a lenient view in the matter of condoning any shortcoming in so far as the service of writ of summons is concerned.;