Non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the plaint or a concise statement thereof along with the summons renders the service of summons invalid.

1. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition against the order dated 14/01/1991, of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Nabha, are as follows:

The State Bank of Patiala instituted a suit on 19/05/1988, for the recovery of Rs. 5,59,172.00 as the principal amount, besides interest, against M/s. Sharma Rice Mills, a partnership concern. The partners of the firm, namely, Sham Lal Sharma, his sons Vinod Kumar Sharma, Parmod Kumar Sharma and Adarsh Mohan Sharma, besides Sham Lal Sharmas wife Bimla Wati Sharma as guarantor were impleaded as parties. The suit is being contested by the aforesaid five defendants. At the stage of service on the defendants Mr. Nikka Singh, Advocate, filed a memo of appearance on. 22/05/1989, on behalf of Sham Lal Sharma, Adarsh Mohan Sharma and Bimla Wati Sharma. On the next date fixed in the suit i.e. 9/06/1989, the said Advocate filed power-of-attorney on behalf of Sham Lal Sharma, defendant No. 2, and Adarsh Mohan Sharma, defendant No. 5, but did not file power-of-attorney in so far as Smt. Bimla Wati Sharma defendant No. 6 is concerned. Issues were framed. The plaintiff closed its evidence on 27/02/1990. Thereafter the defendants started their evidence and already three witnesses have been examined. At that stage Smt. Bimla Wati Sharma made an application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against her on 14-1-1991. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff-Bank was dismissed by the impugned order. By noticing the fact that Mr. Nikka Singh Advocate, had put in appearance on behalf of the applicant and had filed a memo of appearance on 22/05/1989, and later on he had failed to file power-of-attorney on her behalf, the learned trial Court held that there was no ground for setting aside the ex parte proceedings to permit the said applicant to file a written statement. Aggrieved by the order, Smt. Bimla Wati Sharma, defendant No. 6, has filed this revision.

2. Mr. J. C. Nagpal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that Smt. Bimla Wati Sharma was not served in the suit. According to the learned counsel the petitioner is entitled to have the ex parte proceedings set aside and be relegated to the stage of her appearance in the Court in response to the service of summons.

3. The contention of Mr. J. S. Narang, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, on the other hand, is that the petitioner is wife of Sham Lal Sharma and mother of respondents 3 to 5. She was living along with the aforesaid persons. A number of attempts were made to effect service on her. She had adequate notice of the suit and of the various dates fixed therein and on more than one occasion, summons was tendered to her and she declined to accept the same on the ground that the summons was not accompanied by a copy of the plaint. According to the learned counsel, the non-furnishing of a copy of the plaint along with the summons was a mere irregularity and the trial Court was justified in dismissing the petitioners application.

4. I have given my due consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties.

5. The primary question arising for consideration in this case is - whether Smt. Bimla Wati Sharma was duly served in this case? For 26/10/1988, a date fixed in the case for service on the defendants, the report was that proclamation had been done and summons had also been affixed at the outer door of the house of the defendants, which was otherwise locked. The service was not considered adequate for the simple reason that there was no order for effecting substituted service. The Court directed fresh summons to be issued for 23/02/1989. The report dated 20/02/1989, was that Smt. Bimla Wati Sharma was found at home and was tendered summons. She, however, declined to accept the same on the ground that a copy of the plaint be furnished along therewith. Again