ORDER 1. It is very surprising to note that appellant despite report of service of respondents No.2 and 4 that they are not residing at that given address as reported for 11.4.2014 hae not taken steps for supplying the correct address, even though, they were granted time to do the needful on 11.4.2014. this time also as per the report dated 16.5.2014, it was again informed that respondents No.2 and 4 are not living at the given address. On 25.7.2014 also it was observed that respondents No.2 and 4 are not residing at the given address, when again appellant was directed to take steps within two weeks again appellant was directed to take steps within two weeks by paying fresh process fee and the correct address. The defects have not been cured even till date. Order 9 rule 5 reads as under : 5. Dismissal of suit where plaintiff, after summons returned unserved, fails for [seven days] to apply for fresh summons : [1. Where, after a summons has been issued to the defendant, or to one of several defendants, and returned unserved, the plaintiff fails, for a period of (seven days) from the date of return made to the Court by the officer ordinarily certifying to the Court returns made by the serving officers, to apply for the issue of a fresh summons, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed as against such defendant, unless the plaintiff has within the said period satisfied the Court that - (a) he has failed after using his best endeavours to discover the residence of the defendant, who has not been served, or (b) such defendant is avoiding service of process, or (c) there is any other sufficient cause for extending the time, in which case the Court may extend the time for making such application for such period as it thinks fit]. 2. In such case the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit. 2. 2. In such case the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit. 2. The aforesaid provision is incorporated in the statute by way of amendment of civil procedure basically for the purpose that service is effected on the respondents as early as possible and if a report comes that service has not been effect for any reason specified in the aforesaid driver, then an obligation was caused upon the party who wants service to be effected on the other side to take steps within seven days of the receipt of report. If this is not done then the mandate is to dismiss the suit. 3. In the present case, the appellant came to know about the report of service of respondents No.2 and 4 regarding their non-availability on the given address as per the office report dated 2.4.2014. Appellant was given opportunity to take fresh steps. Though fresh steps were taken, but not at the correct address. Process fee was filed for serving these respondents but the report time and again was of the same effect i.e. respondents No.2 and 4 are not available at the given address. 4. Paying process fee alone without supplying the correct address cannot be considered as compliance of the provisions of law. It was required upon the appellant to have filed an application under Order 5 rule 20 CPC for getting substituted service effected upon the respondents No.2 and 4. These steps were also required to be taken within seven days from the knowledge of report of service i.e. non-availability of respondents at the given address. 5. The amended provisions under Order 9 rule 5 is that suit should be dismissed. 6. Since the appellant had been filing process fee of course, not the correct address, in the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is granted to the appellant to do the needful i.e. filing of fresh process fee and the correct address or in alternate, filing of application under Order 5 rule 20. But that too will be subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in favour of M.P. State Legal Service Authority, within one week from today. 7. Notices issued be made returnable for 25.3.2015. Amit Bansal for appellant; Nitin Agarwal for respondent No.1.