Service of summons without the plaint and annexures is not proper service for filing the written statement.

The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent/defendant. Although summons were served on the respondent on 08.01.2024, the summons were not accompanied by copies of the plaint and annexed documents.

The respondent entered appearance through counsel on 06.05.2024, when copies of the annexures were supplied, and thereafter sought time to file the written statement. The petitioner applied for closure of the respondent’s right to file the written statement, contending that the 120-day period under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure had expired. The respondent filed the written statement with an application for condonation of delay on 20.07.2024. By order dated 29.07.2025, the trial court condoned the delay and took the written statement on record, which order was challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether service of summons without copies of the plaint and documents annexed thereto constitutes proper service for the purpose of commencing the period for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC?

Whether the trial court could condone the delay and take the written statement on record when it was filed more than 30 days but within 120 days from the date of proper service?

Whether the trial court’s order dated 29.07.2025 warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?

Order V Rule 2 CPC mandates that every summons must be accompanied by a copy of the plaint and the documents annexed to it; service without these materials is not proper service.

Under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the defendant ordinarily has 30 days to file the written statement, and the court may condone the delay up to 120 days from the date of proper service.

The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised where the subordinate court’s order suffers from illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error.

The Court found that the summons served on 08.01.2024 did not indicate, and the Process Server’s report did not establish, that copies of the plaint and annexures had been supplied to the respondent. Since such documents were necessary for preparing the defence, the earlier service was incomplete and legally ineffective under Order V Rule 2 CPC.

Proper service occurred only on 06.05.2024, when the respondent appeared and received the annexures in court. The written statement filed on 20.07.2024 was therefore filed approximately 75 days after proper service.

As this period was beyond the initial 30 days but within the permissible 120-day period, the trial court had jurisdiction to condone the delay. Its exercise of discretion did not disclose any illegality or impropriety warranting interference under Article 227.

The trial court’s decision to condone the delay and take the written statement on record was upheld, and the petition under Article 227 was dismissed.