$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 26^th February, 2026 + CS(OS) 340/2025 & O.A. 28/2026 SUMEET RAI .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Kirit Mewar, Advocate Mob: 7204073750 Email: lexalliance.kirti@gmail.com versus SHASHI PRABHA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Rajesh Kr. Malhotra, Advocate for D-1, 3, 4 Mob: 9810297948 Mr. Raghu Vasishth, Advocate with Ms. Saransh Sharma, Advocate for D-

2 M: 9873632733 Email: raghuvasishthl9@gmail.com CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):

O.A. 28/2026

1. The present chamber appeal has been filed on behalf of defendant no. 2, under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), against the order dated 22^nd January, 2026, passed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial).

2. By way of the aforesaid order dated 22^nd January, 2026, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) had dismissed the application filed on behalf of defendant no. 2, i.e., I.A. 30220/2025, under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, read with Chapter VII Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, by which the defendant no. 2 had sought condonation of delay in filing written statement.

3. Learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 2 submits that the defendant no. 2 entered appearance before this Court on 09^th October, 2025. It is submitted that the documents which the defendant no. 2 had received, were incomplete and illegible.

4. He, thus, submits that a request on that account was made before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial).

5. He submits that it was only on 09^th October, 2025 that the full set of the plaint along with documents was handed over to the defendant no. 2.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff confirms the aforesaid fact and submits that full set of the plaint, along with the documents, was handed over to learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 2 on 09^th October, 2025. 7. It is to be noted that in the case of ITD Cementation India Limited Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6263, this Court had held in categorical terms that service in the suit cannot be said to be complete unless complete paperbook of the suit has been supplied to the defendant. Paras 12 to 14 of the said judgment in this regard, reads as under:

xxx xxx xxx

12. Thus, it is clear that a plaint is required to be accompanied by full set of documents as filed on behalf of the plaintiff for service upon the defendants. In the present case, though the summons were served upon the Appellant/defendant no. 1 on 04^th January, 2018, the same cannot be considered to be a complete service. This is for the reason that additional documents were filed by plaintiff firstly on

20^th February, 2018 and secondly on 19^th April, 2018. Therefore, only when complete set of documents were supplied to the Appellant/defendant no. 1 by the plaintiff on 19^th April, 2018 that the service to Appellant/defendant no. 1 was completed

13. Similarly, in the case of Sunil Alagh v. Shivraj Puri³, this Court has held in categorical terms that service in the suit cannot be said to be complete unless complete paper book of the suit is supplied to defendants. Thus, it has been held as follows:

“4. In my opinion the service of the defendant no. 1 in the suit cannot be said to be complete unless complete paper book of the suit is supplied to the defendant no. 1. Surely it cannot be the position in law that even if the defendant has not been supplied with the paper book of the suit yet the period of 120 days will commence for filing of the written statement failing which the right to file written statement shall stand closed.

5. From the order dated 10.04.2007, as reproduced above, it is quite clear that the copy of the plaint and documents was supplied by counsel for the plaintiff to counsel for defendant no. 1 on 10.04.2017. Merely because such a prayer was not made earlier would not mean that