JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. Both the parties are represented by their respective learned advocates.

2. The present revisional application is now taken up for hearing.

3. Heard learned advocates for the contending parties for and against the instant revisional application.

4. The present revisional application is now taken up for passing appropriate order.

5. In this revisional application as filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India, the Order No. 8 dated 18.07.2019 as passed by learned 7th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Commercial Suit No. 09 of 2018 has been assailed.

6. By the impugned order, learned trial court in a proceeding under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been pleased to reject the defendant’s application for vacating the said suit from ex-parte Board. The defendant of the said commercial suit felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

7. In support of the instant revisional application, learned advocate for the defendant/ revisionist at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the impugned order. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the copy of the petition being Annexure “D” at Page No. 46 of the instant revisional application which has been rejected by the learned trial court. It is argued that before the learned trial court a specific plea was taken by the defendant that though the defendant has received the summons of the said summary suit along with a copy of the plaint but annexure to the said plaint were not served upon the said defendant for which the defendants have failed to understand the basis of the claim of the plaintiffs. It is further argued by the learned advocate for the revisionist/defendant that non-supply of annexure to the plaint cannot be considered as a good service within the meaning of Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. It is contended further that the learned trial court while passing the impugned order did not at all deal with the said contention as raised by the defendant and wrongly misdirected himself in holding that since after the receipt of the summons the defendant has failed to appear and has also failed to file in Court his address for service of notice on him, the petition filed by the defendant is liable to be rejected. Placing reliance to a reported decision in Nahar Enterprises Vs. Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd. and Another , (2007) 9 SCC 466 , it is contended on behalf of the defendant/revisionist that it is now a settled position of law that service of summons along with a copy of the plaint without its annexure cannot be considered to be a good service within the meaning of Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus, the learned trial court ought to have allowed the petition as filed by the defendant before the learned trial court.

9. Per contra, Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the plaintiff/opposite party at the very out set draws attention of this Court to the written objection as filed by the plaintiff/opposite party herein before the learned trial court as against the petition as filed by the defendant before the learned trial court. It is contended that from Annexure “H” at page No. 75 of the instant revisional application, it would reveal that in paragraph no. 5 of the said written objection, the plaintiff has categorically denied the contention of the defendant and it has been stated specifically that the plaintiff has sent the summons together with the copy of the plaint and its annexure as issued by the learned trial court in both ways that is; through Court or under registered post with A/D.

10. It is further argued by Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate that while disposing of t