SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

The two suits are almost identical save the identity of the plaintiffs and the amounts claimed on account of money lent and advanced. The defendant in either case has applied for dismissal of the suit on the ground that no writ of summons was served within reasonable time by the plaintiff. It is submitted on behalf of the two plaintiffs that a judgment on the one matter would govern the other.

The plaints in the two suits were presented on March 28, 2003 and March 23, 2003, respectively. The writ of summons in the later suit was issued on March 25, 2009; in the earlier suit it was issued on April 1, 2003. By orders of the Master dated February 24, 2009 the returnable dates of the writs of summons were extended. On March 23, 2009 the defendant was served the writs of summons in both suits. The petitions have been filed in the beginning of April, 2009.

The defendant says that the plaintiffs took no steps after the institution of the suits for ensuring that the writ of summons in either case was served on the defendant. The defendant has also questioned the propriety of the ex parte orders of February 24, 2009 passed by the Master. The defendant asserts that these petitions be also treated as appeals from the orders dated February 24, 2009 passed by the Master. The defendant says that it was the bounden duty of the plaintiffs to cause service of the writ of summons, accompanied with copies of the plaints, within a reasonable time of the institution of the suits and the failure to discharge such responsibility without any justifiable cause should result in the dismissal of the claims.

In the affidavits used by the plaintiffs the only explanation that has been proffered is that “there have been negotiations on and of between the plaintiff and the defendant for settlement” and only after it became evident that no settlement was possible that steps were taken for prosecuting the suits. In addition, the plaintiff has averred at paragraph 6 of its affidavit in CS No. 97 of 2003 as follows:

“6. … I state that it is the long-standing practice on the Original Side to apply ex parte before the learned Master for issuance of writ of summons and/or extension of returnable date of writ of summons. These applications are always heard ex parte, even in cases where the defendant has already appeared in an interlocutory proceeding. It is also the longstanding practice of this Hon’ble Court that order(s) are passed on these application(s) without giving any reasons in support thereof. The order of issuance of writ of summons and extension of returnable date of issuance of writ of summons do not effect (sic, affect) the merits of the case and is a purely procedural order in aid of the conduct of the suit.”

The defendant refers to Chapter VIII of the Rules on the Original Side of this Court that is entitled, Writ, Summons, Process. Rule 2A of the Chapter provides that printed forms of the writ of summons may be obtained from the Registrar by any intending plaintiff or any advocate acting on the Original Side at a nominal charge; that the plaintiff or his advocate acting on the Original Side, shall, at the time of presentation of a plaint, produce therewith sufficient number of copies of such forms to provide for one original writ of summons and two copies for service on each defendant; and, that the form shall be filled up in part as indicated in the Rule and left blank in part to be filled up in the Registrar’s office. Rule 6 of Chapter VIII of the said Rules stipulates,

“6. Summons to be delivered to the Sheriff within 14 days. Except as hereinafter provided every writ of Summons shall be taken out and delivered to the Sheriff, for service within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, or for transmission for service elsewhere. A Writ of Summons shall have annexed thereto a copy of the plaint and of every document, sued on, a copy of which is filed therewith. Unless an extension of time is obtained, i