Mr. Rajesh Bindal J.: - The plaintiff is before this court aggrieved against the order dated 1.2.2010 passed by the court below whereby the suit filed by her was dismissed under Order 10 Rule 4 CPC.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit on 3.1.2009, inter-alia, for dissolution of partnership deed dated 1.4.1998 executed between the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No. 1- Raman Kumar Goyal in the name and style of M/s New Hindustan Surgicals Company and for rendition of accounts. After filing of the written statement by the respondents on 11.5.2009, the case was adjourned for filing of replication. After the same having not been filed, the learned court below adjourned the case number of times. On 4.12.2009, the matter was adjourned to 1.2.2010 noticing that on failure of the parties to appear in person, provisions of Order 10 Rule 4 CPC would apply. On the next date, i.e., 1.2.2010, the suit having been dismissed, the order is impugned before this court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly no application regarding admission and denial of documents, as is noticed in the order dated 24.7.2009, was filed by either of the parties. He further submitted that for admission or denial of any of the allegations in the pleadings, the parties were not required to appear in person. It could be in the presence of counsels as well. On all the occasions, counsels for both the parties were present but no questions were asked by the court below. Without exhausting the option under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC, the court could not jump to Order 10 Rule 2 CPC for oral examination of the parties or their companions. The tone and tenor of the order shows that the court had proceeded on the assumption that it was the default of the party under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC, hence the suit was liable to be dismissed. The provision itself provides for extension of time. In support of his contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in M/s Kapil Corepacks Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Shri Harbans Lal (since deceased) through Lrs., 2010(4) Civil Court Cases 63 and of this court in Sarwan Singh v. Onkar Singh and others, 2010(1) Civil Court Cases 231.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is strictly in terms of the provisions of law. The Code provides for examination of the counsels or the parties before framing the issues to shorten the litigation. Keeping that object in view, a stringent provision has been made in Order 10 Rule 4 CPC providing for passing of the judgment or such order as the court deems fit. In the present case, a perusal of the zimni orders passed by the court below shows that the petitioner had defaulted repeatedly. No replication to the written statement was filed, where certain facts had been pleaded showing that the contentions raised in the plaint were totally wrong. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

6. Various orders in CPC provide for procedure in detail for conduct of trial in a suit after the parties have appeared and filed written statement. Before framing of issues, which is provided for under Order 14 CPC, to shorten the dispute between the parties, various provisions have been laid down.

7. Before appreciating the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, a reference to Section 89 and Order X CPC is required. The same are reproduced hereunder:

“Section 89 CPC

89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court.- (1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible