YANGA NIMA Vs. TARA MALING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) In this application under Art. 227 of the constitution of India, the defendant of Money Suit No. 549/2014 of the Court of Addl. District Judge, Basar has challenged the order dated 04.02.2015 whereby the learned Court has decided to proceed ex-parte against the sole defendant.

(3.) In this case, the opposite party as plaintiff instituted a Money Suit praying for a decree of Rs.5,04,828.00 along with interest at Bank rate w.e.f. 24.08.2012. The notice was issued to the defendant and he accordingly appeared. On perusal of the LCR, it appears that ultimately on 03.11.2014 a copy of the plaint was served on the learned counsel of the defendant. Service of notice on a defendant would be complete only on furnishing of the copy of the plaint. This is because along with a copy of summon the plaintiff is duty bound to furnish a copy of plaint to the defendant. Unless a copy of the plaint is furnished, defendant would not be aware about the pleadings of the plaintiff and so it would not be possible on his part to file a written statement. Since the defendant in the present case received the copy of the plaint on 03.11.2014, service on him within the meaning of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be deemed to be made on 03.11.2014 only. The defendant, therefore, was duty bound to submit his written statement within a period of 90 days as prescribed under Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.