Written-statement limitation begins only upon valid service of summons accompanied by the plaint.

The petitioner/plaintiff invoked Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 07.05.2025 by which the trial court condoned the respondents’ delay and permitted them to file their written statement.

The petitioner contended that respondent Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 had been served on 06.11.2023, appeared on 22.11.2023, and were required to file their written statement within 30 days, or at the latest within 120 days, under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

The respondents argued that they had not been validly served because copies of the plaint were furnished to their counsel only on 22.11.2023.

The High Court examined the trial court record and found that the defendants had been served with the order dated 01.11.2023 relating to interim relief, but there was no reliable material showing valid service of summons accompanied by copies of the plaint.

1. Whether the respondents’ right to file the written statement stood forfeited under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC on the basis of the alleged service dated 06.11.2023.

2. Whether service was legally complete when the defendants were not shown to have been served with summons accompanied by a copy of the plaint under Order V Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

3. Whether the trial court rightly permitted the respondents to file their written statement by computing limitation from the date on which the copy of the plaint was furnished to them.

The Court applied Order V Rules 1 and 2 CPC, under which summons must require the defendant to appear and file a written statement and must be accompanied by a copy of the plaint.

Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the written statement is ordinarily to be filed within 30 days of service of summons; the court may extend the time for recorded reasons and costs, but not beyond 120 days from valid service, after which the defendant’s right is forfeited.

The Court relied on Nehar Enterprises v. Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd., (2007) 9 SCC 466, holding that service of summons must include the plaint and accompanying documents, and on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s National Building Construction India Ltd. & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 800, which similarly treated service under Order V Rule 2 as service of summons along with the plaint.

Service of the interim injunction order was treated as compliance with the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, but not as proof of valid service of summons for triggering the period under Order VIII Rule 1.

The alleged date of service, 06.11.2023, could trigger the 30-day and 120-day periods only if summons had been duly served with copies of the plaint.

The record did not establish that summons under Order V Rules 1 and 2 CPC had been issued or served.

Instead, it showed service of the order dated 01.11.2023 concerning interim relief.

Although the process server claimed that copies of the plaint had been supplied, the endorsement appeared interpolated and the process server’s statement did not establish service of summons.

Further, the proceedings dated 22.11.2023 recorded that copies of the plaint were then furnished to the defendants’ counsel, corroborating the respondents’ case that valid service had not occurred earlier.

Consequently, limitation for filing the written statement had to be computed from the date on which the plaint was supplied, and the trial court correctly permitted the written statement to be filed.

The trial court was justified in computing limitation from the date on which the plaint was furnished to the respondents and in allowing them to file their written statement.

Finding no jurisdictional or legal error warranting interference under Article 227, the Court dismissed the petition.