JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Heard. 2.The short question, that arises for consideration in this petition, is whether the suit filed by the non-applicant/plaintiff deserves to be dismissed, on the ground that there was non-compliance of Order 5, Rule 2, read with Order 39, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), as contended by the applicant. 3.After the trial Court issued process, notices were sent to the applicant by three modes; the first one was the usual service, i.e., through bailiff; the second one was by Registered Post, A.D., which was admittedly received by the applicant/defendant; and the third mode of service was after the applicant/defendant had put in his appearance, through the Advocate. In so far as the service through bailiff is concerned, it is stated by the applicant that, only copy of the summons was served without the copy of the plaint and the annexures. With regard to service by Registered Post A.D., it is stated by the non-applicant that besides notice, copy of the plaint, annexures etc. was sent and the same has been duly received by the applicant. It is not in dispute that after the applicant had put in appearance through his Advocate, who, in turn, complained to the Advocate for the non-applicant about non-service of the copy of the plaint and annexures alongwith the summons notice received through bailiff by the applicant, immediately thereafter the Counsel for the non-applicant/plaintiff took steps to furnish the entire record to the Counsel for the applicant/defendant, but the applicant's Advocate refused to accept the same. 4.In this background, an application, being Exhibit 9, came to be filed by the applicant/defendant before the 6th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur, praying for dismissal of the suit, being Special Civil Suit No. 478 of 2000, under Order 5, Rule 2 read with Order 39, Rule 11 of the Code. 5.The trial Court, after considering the rival contentions, has rejected the said application (Exhibit 9), and found that it should be presumed that the relevant documents were served on the applicant along with the summons served through different modes. The observation in para 7 of the impugned order are apt and conclusively decide the point in issue. 5.The trial Court, after considering the rival contentions, has rejected the said application (Exhibit 9), and found that it should be presumed that the relevant documents were served on the applicant along with the summons served through different modes. The observation in para 7 of the impugned order are apt and conclusively decide the point in issue. The trial Court has also relied upon the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court reported in A.I.R. 1987 Punjab Haryana 170 (Risaldar Pakhar Singh v. Bhajan Singh)1, in support of its view that that the suit need not be dismissed merely because the copy of the plaint and annexures was not supplied to the defendant along with the summons served through bailiff. 6.The learned Counsel for the applicant/defendant has pointed out that the decision relied upon by the trial Court in Risaldar's case (supra) has been overruled by the Division Bench of the same High Court in the decision reported in (Baburam Bhatnagar v. Satish Kumar Rawal)2, 1991(2) Punjab Law Reporter 234. Reliance was placed on paras 7 and 10 of the said decision. Besides the said decision, the learned Counsel has relied on the decision of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1969 Bombay 117 (Shevaram Thadaram Jaisinghani v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.)3, which has taken the view that supply of copies along with the summons is essential under Order 5, Rule 2 of the Code. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court reported in A.I.R. 1977 Rajasthan 180 (M/s. General Auto Agencies, Jaipur v. Hazari Singh)4. 7.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant/plaintiff, besides adopting the reasons indicated in the impugned order, has pointed out that non-compliance of Order 5, Rule 2 of the Code does not visit with the dismissal of the suit, as there is no provision in the Code to that effect. According to him, reference made to Order 39, Rule 11 of the Code is totally misplaced, since this is not a case where the direction issued by the Court has not been complied with in which eventuality alone, the provisions of Order 39, Rule 11 can be said to be attracted. According to him, reference made to Order 39, Rule 11 of the Code is totally misplaced, since this is not a case where the direction issued by the Court has not been complied with in which eventuality alone, the provisions of Order 39, Rule 11 can be said to be attracted. The learned Counsel further distinguished the judgments relied upon by the applicant/defendant, on the ground that in all those cases, the plaintiffs had obtained ex parte stay and having failed to supply copies along with the summons; naturally, in that situation, the suit was liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of Order 39, Rule 11 of the Code. It is submitted that in the present case, there was no direction issued by the trial Court while issuing process, in which case the said decisions as well as provisions of Order 39, Rule 11 of the Code can have no application. 8.The learned Counsel for the non-applicant/plaintiff further pointed out the provisions of Order 4, Rule 1-A of the Code to contend that it mandates that the plaintiff shall file as many number of copies, on plain papers, of the plaint with annexures as there are defendants, for service of the summons upon the defendants. It is, therefore, submitted that since the suit was presented in this case along with the requisite copies, it should be presumed that the copies were meant for being served on the concerned defendant, along with the summons. 9.Reliance has also been placed by the learned Counsel for the non-applicant on the provisions of Order 3, Proviso to Rule 2 of the Code, to contend that the applicant/defendant having entered appearance through Advocate, was not entitled to raise the plea that the suit should be dismissed for non-compliance of Order 5, Rule 2 of the Code, particularly when it is matter of record that attempt was made to serve the copies on the Advocate for the applicant/defendant. 10.Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the decision referred to by the learned Counsel for the applicant/defendant in Shevaram's case, A.I.R. 1969 Bom. 10.Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the decision referred to by the learned Counsel for the applicant/defendant in Shevaram's case, A.I.R. 1969 Bom. 117 (supra) can be distinguished on the basis of the facts of this case that the service was sought to be effected on the applicant/defendant by three modes, and it is found that the copy of the relevant documents has been duly furnished along with the summons served on the applicant through Registered Post, in addition to the service effected through the bailiff and an attempt made to serve the Advocate for the applicant/defendant. Besides this, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant/plaintiff has rightly pointed out that the decision does not lay down the proposition that non-compliance of Order 5, Rule 2 of the Code would visit with the consequences of dismissal of the suit, as is contended by the applicant/defendant. Naturally, therefore, non furnishing of copy of the plaint and annexures thereto along with the summons, by itself, cannot result into dismissal of the suit. 11.In so far as the application in question moved by the applicant/defendant under Order 39, Rule 11 of the Code is concerned, in my view, the same was totally misconceived, for, the provisions of Order 39, Rule 11 are not attracted in the facts of the present case. There was no ex parte order obtained by the non-applicant/plaintiff or there was no requirement of complying with any direction issued by the trial Court, as there was none, under Order 39, Rule 11 of the Code. In my view, since there is no provision in the Code that due to non-compliance of the provisions of Order 5, Rule 2, the suit should be dismissed, no reference can be made to the provisions of Order 39, Rule 11 in the present case, as it is not a case covered by the requirements of the said provision. 12.With regard to the other decisions relied upon by the Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff in M/s. Auto Agencies' case, A.I.R. 1977 Rajasthan 180 as well as in Baburam's case, 1991(2) Punjab Law Reporter 234 (both cited supra), the principles enunciated in the said decisions are no different than the one reported in Shevaram's case, A.I.R. 1969 Bom. 117 (supra). I have already considered the applicability of the said decision reported in A.I.R. 1969 Bom. 117, in the foregoing paras. 117 (supra). I have already considered the applicability of the said decision reported in A.I.R. 1969 Bom. 117, in the foregoing paras. For the same reasons, even these decisions will have no application to the present case. 13.In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is totally misconceived and needs no interference. Hence, rejected. Application rejected. -----