Service is complete only upon delivery of a complete paperbook including all documents.

Defendant No. 2 challenged an order dated January 22, 2026, passed by the Joint Registrar (Judicial), which dismissed an application (I.A. 30220/2025) for condonation of delay in filing a written statement

Although Defendant No. 2 entered an appearance on October 9, 2025, the initial documents received were incomplete and illegible

A complete set of the plaint and documents was only provided to the defendant by the plaintiff's counsel on October 9, 2025

The written statement was subsequently filed on November 24, 2025

Whether service of summons is considered complete if the defendant is provided with an incomplete or illegible paper book

Whether the delay in filing the written statement by Defendant No. 2 fell within the permissible statutory outer limit, calculated from the date of effective service

The Court applied Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC and Chapter VII Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which govern the timelines for filing written statements

It relied on the precedent *ITD Cementation India Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Another* (2023), which establishes that service is not complete until a full set of documents filed by the plaintiff is supplied to the defendant

Furthermore, the court cited *Sunil Alagh v. Shivraj Puri*, affirming that the 120-day outer limit for filing a written statement commences only upon receipt of the complete paper book

The Court reasoned that "effective service" occurred only on October 9, 2025, the date the plaintiff admitted to handing over the full set of documents

Calculating from this date, the initial 30-day period expired on November 8, 2025

Since the written statement was filed on November 24, 2025, the total delay was only fifteen days

The Court noted that this timeline sits well within the mandatory 120-day maximum limit prescribed for original side suits in the Delhi High Court

Consequently, the Joint Registrar’s dismissal was deemed erroneous as it likely calculated limitation from an earlier, ineffective date of service.

It held that the written statement was filed within the statutory period of 120 days from effective service and ordered it be taken on record

The Court further granted the plaintiff liberty to file a replication and referred the parties to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, noting the familial nature of the partition suit