Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 1310
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
National Building Construction India Ltd. (M/s) – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 5383 of 2020
Decided On : 12-09-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Preetesh Kapur Senior, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. K Enatoli Sema, Mr. Chubalemla Chang, Mr. Prang Newmai
For the Respondent: Ms. Shilpi Chowdhary, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Mr. Shubham Bhatia, Mr. Akshay Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Mr. Anshul Mehral, Mr. Divyanshu Jain, Mr. Santanu Ghosh, Mr. Sagar Saxena
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, Order V Rule 2 - Computation of limitation for filing written statement - Service of summons was conducted through bailiff on June 19, 2017, and via speed post on August 22, 2017 - The petitioner argued that the service must include a copy of the plaint - Court accepted this legal proposition, affirming that service of summons under Order V Rule 2 requires the accompanying plaint - Noted that the High Court disbelieved incomplete service, a factual question not to be reappraised - Petition dismissed. (Paras 2-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contended that the written statement was filed beyond time limits due to incomplete service of summons. Service occurred through two modes, but only one method was said to lack full documentation critical for proper service.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the argument made by the petitioner valid, emphasizing the necessity of complete service as required under the statute.
Issues: The main issue involved was the computation of the starting date for limitation concerning written statements relative to the proper service of summons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that Order V Rule 2 mandates that service of summons must accompany the plaint, establishing that the first date of service must reflect this principle.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. service and limitation computation. (Para 2) |
| 2. requirement of service under order v rule 2. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. question of fact regarding service. (Para 5) |
| 4. dismissal of the petition. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
2. The point on which the present petition is founded is on computation of starting day of limitation for filing written statement in a suit instituted in the original side of the Delhi High Court, Commercial Division. There was service of summons by two modes. The first was through the bailiff, which was made on 19th June 2017. A copy of the bailiff’s has been annexed at Page ‘22’ of the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 1. The copy of the notice of summons reflects therein that copy of the plaint (complete paperbook) had been supplied. The second service was through speed post made on 22nd August 2017, and contention of the petitioner is that the paperbook which they received through the second mode did not carry two pages which were later made available on 27.10.2017. In the event the date of first service by the bailiff is treated to be the starting date for computing the time for filing written statement, the written statement would have been filed beyond the extended time permissible under the law.
3. If we treat the second service by speed post to be the starting point, then also the written statement was filed beyond time. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been urged that the provision of Order V Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires service of summons with plaint.
4. We accept the petitioner’s argument 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.
5. We have gone through the pleadings before the High Court. We find from the impugned order that the High Court disbelieved incomplete service of the plaint. It is essentially a question of fact, which we do not want to reappreciate at this stage.
6. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
