Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. M/S National Building Construction India Ltd., held that the service contemplated under Order V Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), involves service of summons along with the copy of the plaint.

Background

• In this case, there was service of summons by two modes.
• The first was through the bailiff, which was made on 19^th June 2017 and the second service was through speed post made on 22^nd August 2017.
• The contention of the petitioner is that the paper book which they received through the second mode did not carry two pages which were later made available.
• On behalf of the petitioner, it has been urged that the provision of Order V Rule 2 of CPC requires service of summons with plaint.
• The High Court did not believe the version of the incomplete service of the plaint.
• Thereafter the petition was filed before the SC which was dismissed by the Court.

Court’s Observations

• Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi observed that the service contemplated under Order V Rule 2 of CPC implies the service of the summons along with a copy of the plaint.

Legal Provisions

• Order V Rule 2, CPC:
  • Rule 2 of Order V of CPC deals with the copy of the plaint which is to be annexed to summons.
  • It states that every summons should be accompanied by a copy of the plaint.
• Summons:
  • Summons is an authoritative call from the court to attend the court at a specified place and at a specified time.
  • The provision related to summons is given in Section 27-32 and Order V of CPC.
  • Rule 1 of Order V states that -

(1) When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant.

Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the plaintiff’s claim.

Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.

(2) A defendant to whom a summons has been issued under sub-rule (1) may appear—

(a) in person, or

(b) by a pleader duly instructed and able to answer all material questions relating to the suit, or

(c) by a pleader accompanied by some person able to answer all such questions.

(3) Every such summons shall be signed by the Judge or such officer as he appoints and shall be sealed with the seal of the Court.

• • In the case of the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Haji Wali Mohammad (1972) the Supreme Court held that if a summon does not fulfil the requirements of Order V Rule 19 of CPC, then such service of summons would not be considered in accordance with the law.