The Supreme Court in the case observed and has stated that the service ccontemplated under Order V Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thus, implied service of summons served along with the copy of the plaint.
The bench comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela Trivedi in the case was hearing the challenge against an order of the original side of the Delhi High Court, Commercial Division.
In the present case, the court was considering the starting day for computation of limitation for filing of the written statement in a suit. Thus, there was the service of summons by two modes, the first being through the bailiff and the second was through speed post and the two pages of the paper book were missing when the petitioner in the case received service through the second mode.
The Apex Court in the case observed and has accepted the legal positions put forth by the petitioner that Order V Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires service of summons with plaint.
The court accepted the arguments of the petitioner on the legal proposition that service contemplated in terms of Order V Rule 2 of the Code would imply service of summons along with the copy of the plaint. Therefore, it has also been noted by the said court that the High Court did not believe the version of the incomplete service of the plaint. However, being a question of fact. Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the plea.