JUDGEMENT M.R.Verma, J. (Oral) - 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.9.1998 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan whereby the suit of the petitioner has been dismissed under order17 Rule 2 C.P.C. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that Civil Suit No. 190/1 of 1994 instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner (hereafter referred to as the petitioner) against the defendants-respondents (here-after referred to as the respondents) was pending in the court of learned Senior Sub judge, Sirmaur. 3. The petitioner moved an application under order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. alongwith amended plaint in the suit which was allowed by the court below vide its order dated 30.5.1998 and Desh Raj and Mansa Ram were ordered to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. It was also directed to issue process against the newly added defendants for 27.7.1998. Pursuant to this order, summons were issued to the newly added respondents for the due date and they were duly served. However, on that day the presiding officer was not present and was on leave, therefore, the file came up for effective order on 1.8.1998 when fresh summons on filing of P.F. were ordered to be issued to the said defendants for 1.9.1998. However, petitioner failed to file P.F. and therefore, the matter was adjoined for service of the newly added defendants for 24.9.1998. Again the petitioner defaulted in filing the P.F. Hence, the impugned order came into being and the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record. 5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner himself is more than 72 years of age and is residing in Delhi and was forbidden to take exertion on account of his heart ailment as advised by the medical attendant and he is still under treatment for the ailment of which he had undergone by-pass surgery in the year 1995. It was also contended that pursuant to the order dated 3.5.1998 precess fee for summoning the newly added defendants was in fact filed. It was also contended that pursuant to the order dated 3.5.1998 precess fee for summoning the newly added defendants was in fact filed. Since on 27.8.1998 presiding officer was not present, therefore, no effective orders were passed and thereafter counsel for the petitioner did not file the court fee because of the impression that the court fee had already been filed and the factum that the court fee stood exhausted because of the service of the defendants for a day when the presiding, officer was not present could not be visualised by the counsel which led to passing of the impugned order, and, therefore, one more adjournment ought to have been granted as was prayed. 6. In view of the material on record it cannot be disputed that the petitioner complied with the order dated 30.5.1998 regarding service of the newly added defendants and filed process fee. However,! the service was effected for a date when the Presiding Officer himself j was on leave and none put in appearance in the court. It is evident from it that the non-filing of the process fee by the petitioner [subsequently was not intentional, deliberate or to prolong the matter. In fact, he did take the steps required of him. Thereafter the matter A was taken care of by his counsel, who allegedly failed to appreciate 1 that the process fee already filed stood exhausted though the service I was effected for a day when the Presiding Officer himself was not present. On 24.9.1998 when the impugned order was passed the learned counsel representing the petitioner before the court below did made a request of adjournment, however, zimni does not show as to what was the ground taken by him for seeking such adjournment. Therefore, zimni order itself is incomplete. The learned Trial Judge ought to have mentioned the ground for adjournment in its order so as to appreciate the reasonableness of the ground which has not been done. It has, therefore, to be believed that the ground pressed for adjournment was that the counsel for the petitioner could not properly appreciate that the earlier P.F. was to be filed. Thus, mistake regarding non-filing of the P.F. apparently is based on the mis-conception of the counsel for the petitioner and for such a lapse the petitioner could not | be deprived of justice on merit. 7. Thus, mistake regarding non-filing of the P.F. apparently is based on the mis-conception of the counsel for the petitioner and for such a lapse the petitioner could not | be deprived of justice on merit. 7. In the given circumstances of the case it would have been the proper exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the trial Judge to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to take steps for service of the newly added defendants. The dismissal of the suit in the given circumstances of the case is, therefore, unjustifiable and contrary to the requirement of the interests of justice and is illegal exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. As a. result this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to re-register the suit against its original number and date and give an opportunity to the petitioner to take steps for service of the newly added defendants in the suit subject to payment of costs in the sum of Rs. 500/- by him to the respondents-defendants. Costs to be paid on or before the date hereafter fixed for appearance of the parties before the Trial Court. In case petitioner fails to pay the costs as directed herein or to take appropriate steps for service of the newly added defendants the learned trial Judge will be at liberty to pass further appropriate orders in the matter as permissible in law to have because of such failure. 9. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12.7.2002.