JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Orissa Industrial Development Corporation Limited instituted money suit against a Seva Samabaya Samiti and its Secretary for recovery of Rs. 1554.40 on the allegation that tiles had been supplied to the Society on credit and price had not been paid. The suit was presented in a Court which did not have the territorial jurisdiction and upon return of the plaint for presentation in the proper Court, it was filed in the Court of the Munsif at Cuttack and was registered as Money Suit No. 153 of 1974. Ultimately a notice under Order 5, Rule 20 of the CPC was directed to be taken against the Defendants. On 12-4-1977 the service report was that the process had not been served on the Defendants and the Plaintiff was directed to take fresh steps by 16-4-1977. On the 16th of April no steps were taken and the suit was, therefore, struck off for default. An application was made under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code and on 11-8-1977 the same was heard and orders were reserved. The case was posted to 19-8-1977. As it appears, the learned Trial Judge had restored the suit on condition that the requisite process would be filed. On 19-8-1977, no steps were taken and the miscellaneous case was again dismissed for noncompliance of order dated 11-8-1977. Thereupon a fresh application u/s 151 of the Code was filed which came to be registered as Misc. Case No. 253 of 1977. On 6-10-1977, after looking into the entire matter, the learned Munsif took the view that dismissal of the previous miscellaneous proceeding was subject to appeal and jurisdiction u/s 151 of the Code was not invocable. Against this order the Plaintiff has carried this revision. 2. Opposite parties continue to be absent from Court in spite of service of notice. 3. Upon hearing counsel for the Petitioner and taking into consideration the developments from stage to stage, I am inclined to agree that judicial discretion should not be exercised in favour of the Petitioner. There is no force in the contention that Court is hound to allow thirty days' time in the minimum as provided under Order 9, Rule 5 of the CPC before recording an adverse order against the Plaintiff in the matter of service of process. There is no force in the contention that Court is hound to allow thirty days' time in the minimum as provided under Order 9, Rule 5 of the CPC before recording an adverse order against the Plaintiff in the matter of service of process. The provision is directory and it is open to the Court to regulate the procedure in such a way that less time than thirty days may be allowed. A defaulting Plaintiff is not entitled to tell the Court that the period allowed was less than thirty days and, therefore, the direction was without authority of law and if not complied with Court not result in an adverse order. 4. An opportunity to take out process had been allowed on 11-8-1977 and obviously no appropriate enquiry was made as to what orders had been made in the miscellaneous proceeding and thus there was non-compliance with the conditional order. In these circumstances. I do not think, the cause of justice would warrant further indulgence to be shown to the Petitioner. The application has been rightly dismissed in the Court below and interference is not called for. As there is no appearance for the opposite parties, there will be no order for costs. Final Result : Allowed