BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : The plaintiff/applicant has filed a commercial suit for realisation of Rs. 1,01,15,735/- from the defendants/respondents and inter alia moved for several interlocutory orders and prayed for appointment of a receiver. Accordingly, a receiver was appointed who was directed to take charge of the properties. The application appeared before the different benches of this Court and the order of appointment of receiver was, however, maintained. ( 2 ) THE respondents filed an application under section 391 (6) of the Companies' Act, 1956 being C. A. No. 385 of 1998 and is said to have obtained an exparte order of stay of all the proceedings but the petitioner having come to know about such order, preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court who vacated the interim order. ( 3 ) SINCE the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner kept himself engaged in several proceedings, inadvertently, it escaped his notice to take the writ of summons for lodgement and for service on the defendant. It has been, inter alia, stated that already a copy of the plaint having been served upon the respondent, there was no further necessity again to take the writ of summons or lodging the same with the office of the Sherrif at Calcutta. But, however, in order to oviate the aforesaid difficulty the time for taking out writ of summons be extended. ( 4 ) THE defendants filed a separate application by stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff had intentionally and deliberately omitted to take out writ of summons and lodge in the office of Sherrif. The suit is, therefore, not liable to be maintained and accordingly it be taken off the file or in the alternative be dismissed. ( 5 ) MR. Sarkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the defendants has argued with great intensity of conviction that since the plaintiff has omitted to take out writ of summons to the defendants and there being no sufficient cause for not taking out writ of summons or lodging the same with the office of Sherrif the suit was, therefore, incompetent and accordingly liable to be dismissed. The defendants in support of their plea relied upon a judgment reported in 1993 (2) Supreme Court Cases page 185 in the case of Salil Dutta v. T. M. and M. C. Private Limited. The defendants in support of their plea relied upon a judgment reported in 1993 (2) Supreme Court Cases page 185 in the case of Salil Dutta v. T. M. and M. C. Private Limited. I have gone through the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken note of the fact that the defendants had taken several times in the on-going suit posted for final hearing. The defendants was not a rustic ignorant villager and it was a company whose head office was situated at Calcutta. In such situation it was unusual to throw the entire burden only on the head of the learned counsel for not taking the steps on the date of hearing. In the aforesaid matter the Court considered the conduct of the defendants and accordingly their prayer was rejected. Only thing that is required to be looked into is that whether there was want of bonafide for such in-action or negligence on the part of the learned Advocate. If there was no calpable negligence on the part of the plaintiff or his counsel, the delay which might have caused, is deserved to be condoned. In my considered opinion the Supreme Court case cited by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants has no relevance. ( 6 ) STRONG relian was placed on the reported judgment in 1994 (II) CHN page 161 in the case of State Bank of India versus Tarit Appliances. It is true that a learned Judge of this Court by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case held that the service of summons shall be made in accordance with the procedure and Rule 5 of Order (ix) of the Code of Civil Procedure could work out dismissal of the suit. In that case I found there was a plea of limitation taken by the defendants which was accepted by the Court below. Since the plaintiffs suit was dismissed on account of limitation it was rightly observed by the learned Judge that the suit could not have been maintained after the prescribed period of limitation. In this case Mr. Saha, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has indicated that no such plea of limitation has been taken by the defendants. Apart from it I found the facts of the above referred judgment are quite distinguishable from the present facts. In this case Mr. Saha, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has indicated that no such plea of limitation has been taken by the defendants. Apart from it I found the facts of the above referred judgment are quite distinguishable from the present facts. In the aforesaid case there was a liquidation proceeding and the assets was sold for Rs. 11 lakhs and the bank did not prefer any appeal against the order of liquidation. Therefore, the Court held that the service of summons being imperative and the same was not done by the plaintiff, accordingly, the suit was held to be unsustainable. ( 7 ) RELIANCE was placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 61 CWN page 212 in the case of Laxmi Trdg. v. Shriram Gobindnarain. In this case the Division Bench considered the point whether a master can entertain an application after the expiry of three months from the date of return of service of summons. The Court after having considered different provisions, came to hold that the Original Side Rules speaks of the Court making an order of dismissal of the suit. The "court" contemplates can only be a Judge and cannot be the master. Therefore, in the above case the Division Bench has rightly held the master has no power to pass an order of dismissal of the suit. Once a right has accrued to the defendants, it cannot be taken away by the Court without giving a chance of hearing to him. ( 8 ) UNDISPUTEDLY the copy of the plaint was served upon the defendant's company while moving an application for appointment of receiver. The learned Advocate appearing for the defendants has indicated that under the provisions of Order 39 sub rule 3, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to serve a copy of the plaint along with the application, but, it does not absolve the duty enjoined under the rules for further service of copy of a plaint along with the writ of summons. It is true that the sub rule 3 of Order 39 enjoins service of a copy of the plaint but I found the application for receiver was taken out but not for an ad interim injunction. Under Order 40 Rule 1 it does not, however, postulate any service of a copy of a plaint. It is true that the sub rule 3 of Order 39 enjoins service of a copy of the plaint but I found the application for receiver was taken out but not for an ad interim injunction. Under Order 40 Rule 1 it does not, however, postulate any service of a copy of a plaint. Whatsoever it may be since a copy of the plaint has already been served upon the defendant Company it was only a technical requirement which the plaintiff could not comply. ( 9 ) IT is always to be remembered that the Court's exist to advance the cause of justice but not to hinder it and that justice must not be a hand made to technicalities. The purpose of taking out writ of summons against the defendants is to acknowledge him about the action taken by the plaintiff. The defendant was made aware of the suit after the service of the copy of a plaint. Mr. Saha, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in 1998 (2) Calcutta Law Times page 46 in the case of Kaveri Ultra Polymers Ltd. v. Jenson and Nicholson (I) Limited. A learned single Judge of this Court held that since the defendant has already been made aware of the suit and further a copy of the plaint served along with the interlocutory application, non-service of writ of summons, in such case, it would be an empty formality. While considering the case of both the parties the Court has to strike the balance as to what extent the defendants will be prejudiced by non-service of writ of summons. The learned Advocate appearing for the defendant has, however, not satisfactorily proved as to how such non-service of writ of summons upon the defendants would entail hardship which would amount to injustice to his client. It is true that writ of summons is not taken against the defendant but such non service of summons would not cause any prejudice to the company. At any rate, how the plaintiffs have filed an application for taking out the writ of summons. It is a fit case where the Court can exercise its inherent power. A faint attempt has been made by the defendants that in this situation the Court should not exercise its discretion for enlargement of time but I summarily reject the said contention. It is a fit case where the Court can exercise its inherent power. A faint attempt has been made by the defendants that in this situation the Court should not exercise its discretion for enlargement of time but I summarily reject the said contention. Non-exercise of inherent power in the above case would amount to abuse of powers of Court. Accordingly, the time for taking out writ of summons against the defendant be extended for a period of four weeks. ( 10 ) IN the result, the application filed by the defendant for dismissal of the suit is hereby dismissed without costs and the other application for enlargement of time to take out writ of summons is, accordingly, allowed. The plaintiff may file requisites within a week before the Master. On such requisites being filed by the plaintiff, the writ of summons be sent to the Sheriff for service within two weeks thereafter and returnable within three weeks. Let the matter appear after three weeks. ( 11 ) LET there be an interim stay of operation of the order for a period of two weeks. It, however, does not prevent the plaintiff from taking out writ of summons against the defendant which shall abide by the result of the appeal in case filed. All interlocutory orders passed earlier stand vacated. Order accordingly