Petition challenging the dismissal of a suit against Defendant No.1(c) due to non-service of summons. The petitioner argues procedural errors and seeks restoration of the suit based on grounds of substantial justice and procedural fairness.

1. Background and Procedural History:

   • Details the filing and subsequent dismissal of a suit against Defendant No.1(c) under Order IX Rule 5 due to non-service of summons.
   • Mention of various court orders and applications filed by both parties regarding dismissal and review of the suit.

2. Legal Arguments:

   • Petitioner's Argument:
     • Contends that non-service of summons on Defendant No.1(c) should not lead to automatic dismissal of the suit.
     • Cites previous court decisions and provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to argue for restoration of the suit.
     • Emphasizes the defendant's awareness of the proceedings as shown by legal documents.
   • Respondent's Argument:
     • Opposes restoration of the suit, citing mandatory provisions of Order IX Rule 5 regarding dismissal for non-service of summons.
     • Argues that plaintiff failed to comply with procedural requirements and did not show sufficient cause for restoration.
     • Supports the lower court's decision as proper exercise of jurisdiction.

3. Court's Analysis and Decision:

   • Interpretation of Order V Rule 11 and Order IX Rule 5:
     • Discusses the mandatory nature of service of summons under Order V Rule 11 and consequences of non-compliance under Order IX Rule 5.
     • Considers whether strict adherence to the two-month period for applying for fresh summons is required.
   • Application of Section 151 and Judicial Precedents:
     • Refers to judicial precedents allowing for restoration of suits dismissed under Order IX Rule 5 using inherent powers under Section 151, provided sufficient cause is shown.
     • Considers whether defendant's knowledge of the suit can affect the necessity for fresh summons.

4. Conclusion and Direction to Lower Court:

   • Suggests that the lower court should have considered issuing fresh summons to Defendant No.1(c) rather than dismissing the suit.
   • Indicates the court's view on the necessity of strict procedural adherence versus substantive justice.
   • Provides a direction or recommendation for further proceedings in light of the legal arguments presented.