Judgment Heard Mr. Nigel Costa Frias, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, learned Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. R. Menezes, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 and Mr. B. Rodrigues, learned Advocate for respondent no. 4. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition the petitioners challenge order dated 25/4/2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No. 219/2011/C by which the application dated 11.4.2012 for restoration of the suit qua defendant nos. 4 and 5 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 4. The petitioners filed the above suit against respondents/defendants seeking reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunctions. Record discloses that on 26.3.2012 notices were issued to defendant nos. 4 and 5, but copies were not given by the plaintiffs. On 9.4.2012 learned trial Judge dismissed the suit as against newly added defendant nos. 4 and 5 on the ground that no steps were taken by the plaintiffs to serve defendant nos. 4 and 5. An application under Order 9 Rule 4 was filed by the plaintiffs for restoration of the suit as against defendant nos. 4 and 5. The said application has been dismissed by learned trial Judge by passing following Order:- Perused the application and provisions of Order 9 Rule 5. Heard Adv. J. Fernandes for the Plaintiffs. No reply filed. Perused the case in the matter AIR 2000 Bombay 307, Vishwanath Gaikwad Vs. Laxman Kawale. I find once a suit is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 5, it would not lie with the plaintiffs to seek restoration in view of the embargo of Order 9 Rule 5(2). Hence, application is dismissed. Plaintiffs to take recourse as per law. 5. Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the suit as against defendants was actually dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and not under Order 9 Rule 5 of C.P.C as has been held by learned Single Judge and, therefore, the impugned order passed is patently unsustainable in law. According to the learned Counsel, reliance placed by learned trial Judge upon the judgment in the case of Vishwanath Gaikwad (supra) is totally misplaced and the learned trial Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law. According to the learned Counsel, reliance placed by learned trial Judge upon the judgment in the case of Vishwanath Gaikwad (supra) is totally misplaced and the learned trial Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law. Learned Counsel further submitted that application was supported by an affidavit filed by Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs in the trial Court in which cogent reasons were given for not taking steps to serve defendant nos. 4 and 5. As such, the learned trial Judge ought to have allowed the application and restored the suit qua defendant nos. 4 and 5 inasmuch as otherwise, serious prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs in the suit. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that no case has been made out for interference by this Court. 7. I find merit in the submission of Mr. Costa Frias that the suit as against defendant no. 4 and 5 was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and not under Order 9 Rule 5 of C.P.C. as has been held by learned trial Judge. Obviously therefore, reliance placed by learned trial Judge on the judgment in the case of Vishwanath Gaikwad (supra) is totally misplaced. The ratio of the said judgment would not be attracted in the present case. 8. The application for restoration of the suit qua defendant nos. 4 and 5 filed by the plaintiffs was supported by an affidavit of an Advocate Ms. Jessica Fernandes who was appearing for the plaintiffs and she claimed that she had visited the office to verify whether summons have been issued to defendant nos. 4 to 6 and she was informed that the file was not available. In my view, the reason given by the plaintiffs for not taking steps cannot be said to be totally unacceptable, and, as such, the learned trial Judge ought to have allowed the application for restoration of suit qua defendant nos. 4 and 5. 9. I find merit in the submission of Mr. Costa Frias that in the event suit is not restored qua against defendant nos. 4 and 5 serious prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs in the suit. 4 and 5. 9. I find merit in the submission of Mr. Costa Frias that in the event suit is not restored qua against defendant nos. 4 and 5 serious prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs in the suit. I am therefore of the considered opinion, that the interest of justice would be served by allowing the application dated 11.4.2012 filed by the plaintiffs subject to the plaintiffs giving copies of the plaint for service on defendant nos. 4 and 5 within a period of two weeks from today. Mr. Costafrais submits that plaintiffs would submit copies of the plaint for service on defendant nos. 4 and 5 within a period of two weeks. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.4.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No. 219/2009/C is quashed and set aside. Petitioners/ plaintiffs shall furnish copies of the plaint before trial Court for service of summons on defendant nos. 4 and 5 within a period of two weeks. 11. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.