SREENIVASA BASUDEV Vs. VINET KUMAR KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can service of summons on a defendant be regarded as complete if a copy of the plaint is not delivered to him along with the summons? Is a plaintiff bound to submit to the court copies of documents? If so, when is he so bound? Does the court have [the power to direct a plaintiff to furnish to a defendant copy of a document? If so, when and under what circumstances such a direction can be given? If a plaintiff does not furnish to a defendant copy of a document despite directions given, in this regard, to the plaintiff by the court, can, while computing the period of 90 days for filing of written statement, as envisaged under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, the period dur - ing which the copy of the document remained unfurnished to the defendant be excluded? tf a plaintiff does not furnish to a defendant copy of a document despite directions given, in this regard, to the plaintiff by a court, can the court insist that it is the duty of the defendant to file written statement within the extended period of 90 days from the date of service of summons? These are some of the intricate questions, which the present writ petition has thrown up for determination in this writ petition.

(2.) The material facts leading to the present writ petition may, in brief, be set out as follows:

(3.) I have heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, and Mr. O. P. Bhati, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.