Judgment :- 1. The Application is filed to dismiss the Suit for non-prosecution invoking Order 7, Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The applicant-Company is the first defendant in the Suit. The applicant would contend that though the Suit was filed on 27. 1993 specifically mentioning the registered office address of the first Defendant, the respondent/plaintiff failed to take summons to the registered office inspite of the fact that the process server returned many an occasion the suit summons with the endorsement that the first defendant could not be found at the address given in the summons as the first defendant had vacated. The respondent appears to have woken up and taken the suit summons to the address of first defendants registered office only in the year 2006. There is inordinate, inexplicable and inexcusable delay of 13 years in prosecuting the suit diligently. Grave injustice and prejudice have been caused to the first defendant. If notice had been served in time, the first defendant would have taken suitable steps to preserve the relevant records and to keep track of the whereabouts of the individual who were on site at the time of the alleged accident. The relevant papers and the persons connected with the subject matter of the Suit are not at all traceable. Therefore, the applicant prays for dismissal of the Suit. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been contended that the applicant/first defendant is liable in law to compensate and reimburse the respondent the Suit claim of Rs.44,38,576/- by way of damages as a result of a fire accident that took place on 1. 1993 in the building belonging to the respondent. The respondent took steps to serve the applicant at the alternative address. The applicant purposely evaded service of suit summons. The applicant had not taken any steps to inform the nearest post office to make arrangements for redirecting the correspondence after vacating the premises. As a Private Limited Company, the applicant is supposed to maintain all its records properly. If the Suit is dismissed, the respondent will be put to great hardship after a long inordinate delay of 13 years waiting for justice. 4. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Suit is liable to be dismissed for the alleged lapse on the part of the respondent/plaintiff in prosecuting the Suit diligently. 5. If the Suit is dismissed, the respondent will be put to great hardship after a long inordinate delay of 13 years waiting for justice. 4. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Suit is liable to be dismissed for the alleged lapse on the part of the respondent/plaintiff in prosecuting the Suit diligently. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would vehemently submit that the respondent/plaintiff, having specifically mentioned in the long cause title of the plaint the alternative registered address of the applicant, failed to take effective steps to serve the summons on the applicant at the alternative address, despite the fact that the process server categorically made endorsement that the applicant had vacated the premises. The hardship that is being faced by the applicant in mobilising the material documents and witnesses to contest the Suit laid as against the applicant is also projected by the learned counsel for the applicant to buttress the claim of the applicant seeking dismissal of the Suit. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that there is no lapse on the part of the respondent/plaintiff in taking steps to serve the summons on the applicant. As the summons taken to the applicant was returned with the endorsement that the applicant had already vacated the premises, the respondent took out summons to the alternative address already mentioned in the long cause title in the plaint. The applicant cannot be permitted to walk off the proceedings on the flimsy reasons assigned in the Application. The Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate dismissal of the Suit or rejection of the plaint as the case may be on such a ground put forth by the applicant. 7. The Application is filed invoking the provision under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate dismissal of the Suit or rejection of the plaint as the case may be on such a ground put forth by the applicant. 7. The Application is filed invoking the provision under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is quite relevant to refer to Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as follows: "Rejection of Plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: .(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; .(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; .(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written on paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff does not make good the deficiency within the time, if any, granted by the Court; .(d) where the Suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; .(e) where it is not filed in duplicate; where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9: Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may he, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff." 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, there is no scheme formulated under the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the Plaint on the ground that the plaintiff exhibited supine indifference in serving summons on the Defendant for quite a long time. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, there is no scheme formulated under the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the Plaint on the ground that the plaintiff exhibited supine indifference in serving summons on the Defendant for quite a long time. As per the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Plaint can he rejected only if it does not disclose a cause of action or the correct valuation was not given by the plaintiff within the time frame fixed by the Court or the requisite stamp paper as ordered by the court was not supplied within the time fixed by the Court or the Suit claim is found to be barred by law or the Plaint in duplicate was not filed or the directions under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not complied with. The Plaint cannot be simply rejected as there has been inordinate delay in serving summons on the Defendant. 9. In Sweeney v. Sir Robert Mcalpine, 1974 (I) LLOYDS LAW REPORTS 128, Lord Denning observes that if the plaintiff is guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay finishing up with a failure to observe the rules of the Court as to time - he is liable to have his action dismissed for want of prosecution, if the total delay is such as seriously to prejudice the Defendants. That was a case where an accident took place as early as on 7. 1969. No claim was made against the defendant until July 3, 1972, though the summons was served on the defendant who duly entered appearance. No statement of claim was delivered within the prescribed period. In the month of January 1973, the defendants intimated the plaintiff that if the action was not proceeded with, they would apply to have it struck out. Again, in the month of February 1973, the defendant-Company sent ultimatum to furnish the statement of claim within the time frame. As nothing happened, the defendants in the said English case filed an Application to dismiss the action for want of prosecution. As the statement of claim was not circulated to the other side within the prescribed period and the ultimatum dropped on the plaintiff has not received any positive response, the Court had to dismiss the action initiated by the plaintiff for want of prosecution. 10. As the statement of claim was not circulated to the other side within the prescribed period and the ultimatum dropped on the plaintiff has not received any positive response, the Court had to dismiss the action initiated by the plaintiff for want of prosecution. 10. In the instant case, it is found that the respondent has taken steps continuously to serve the summons on the applicant, who had its office in Chennai. There was no direction given by the Court to take summons to the alternative address furnished in the long cause title in the Plaint. It is not as if the respondent flouted the fiat of the Court or the prescription of law. In fact, it is found from the records that the respondent had to ultimately serve the summons on the applicant to the alternative address. After all the Suit is one for compensation. There is no reason for the respondent to elongate the lis. No mala fide can be attributed to the action of the respondent for not serving the summons in time. It is found on record that three counsel have been changed by the respondent over a period of time. In such circumstances, the Court finds that the above decision does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid English decision, Justice Srinivasan, (as He then was) held in The Union of India v. M/s. Cavelier Shipping Co., 1989 (2) LW 371, that the Suit was liable to be dismissed as there had been an inordinate delay of 17 years in representing the plaint which was returned by the office. In the said case, it is found that an Application was filed by the plaintiff to condone the delay of 17 long years in representing the plaint which was returned by the registry and the same was entertained and the delay of 17 years in representation was condoned by the Master without giving opportunity to the Defendant to contest the Application. In short, the validity of the order passed by the Master condoning the delay was under challenge at the instance of the Defendant in the said Suit. The Court, considering the inordinate delay of over 17 long years in representing the Plaint, chose to set aside the order passed by the Master and dismissed the Suit. In short, the validity of the order passed by the Master condoning the delay was under challenge at the instance of the Defendant in the said Suit. The Court, considering the inordinate delay of over 17 long years in representing the Plaint, chose to set aside the order passed by the Master and dismissed the Suit. The ratio laid down by this Court in the above said authority cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case where the proceedings continued by the respondent are under challenge on the ground that there has been inordinate delay in serving the summons on the applicant. 12. The inordinate delay occasioned in this case cannot be directly attributed to the respondent alone. This Court should have alerted the respondent to take out summons to the correct address of the applicant when it was informed to the Court by the process server that the applicant had already vacated the premises. After all, the applicant is a Private Limited Company. They would normally maintain all the material records for the purpose of future use. The accident which took place at the premises of the respondent is admitted. There had been heavy loss of property on account of fire in the premises of the respondent. It is not a negligible incident which would easily fade away from the human memory immediately. Therefore, the applicant has to defend the case with the available materials and the witnesses to the occurrence. It is open to the applicant to contend during the course of trial that the applicant is under handicap on account of the long lapse in serving summons on the applicant. 13. It is found that there is no ill intention on the part of the respondent to prolong the proceedings by not serving the summons on the applicant in a Suit laid down by the respondent seeking compensation for the fire that took place in their premises. Though there is inordinate delay in serving the summons on the applicant that cannot be a ground for dismissal of the Suit or rejection of the Plaint more especially when such a course is not contemplated under the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. Under the above facts and circumstances, the Application is found not sustainable and therefore, it stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.