J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated May 16, 1988, whereby the suit was dismissed under Order IX rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, for want of the correct address of the defendant. According to the trial Court, there was nothing on the record to suggest that the plaintiff was not aware of any other address of the defendants except the one given in the plaint in order to order the substituted service of the defendant.
(2.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the only address available was furnished and, therefore, it was a fit case for ordering substituted service.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the plaintiff should have been directed to move the necessary application for sub-stistuted service supported by an affidavit rather than to pass the impugned order.;