Rama Rani v. Chaman Lal, 2026

The trial court directed issuance of summons to Rama Rani. However, according to the High Court's examination of the record, no summons was actually issued or served upon her. Instead, what was served on her on 7 January 2023 was a copy of an ex parte temporary injunction order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

Rama Rani subsequently entered appearance through counsel on 3 May 2023 and sought time to file her written statement. On 26 May 2023, the trial court closed her right to file the written statement, holding that the 120-day period under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC had expired.

She challenged that order before the High Court, arguing that the statutory period could not begin because she had never been properly served with summons under Order V CPC.

Justice Sanjay Parihar held that the record did not establish that summons had actually been issued or served upon Rama Rani in accordance with Order V CPC. What had been served was only the ex parte injunction order.

The Court emphasized that service of an interim injunction order and service of summons serve different legal purposes. Summons formally requires a defendant to appear and answer the claim and triggers the statutory period for filing the written statement. An injunction order, on the other hand, communicates the interim relief granted by the court and the material supporting it.

The Court therefore held that the 120-day period under the adapted Order VIII Rule 1 CPC could not begin merely because Rama Rani had received the injunction order.

The trial court was directed to take the written statement on record if already filed, or permit it to be filed on the next date of hearing, and thereafter proceed with the suit according to law.

The Court drew a substantive distinction between Order V summons and an Order XXXIX Rule 3 injunction order. A summons calls upon the defendant to appear and answer the suit; an injunction order primarily communicates the interim relief granted without prior notice.

The adapted version of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC provides that the written statement must be filed within 120 days from the date of service of summons, after which the defendant forfeits the right to file it. The Court therefore treated valid summons service as a necessary condition precedent for commencement of the period.

The Court considered the distinction recognized in Prabin Ram Phukan v. State of Assam, AIR 2015 SC 1252 between complete non-service and service accompanied by procedural irregularity. In the present case, the High Court found that the record showed non-service of summons, rather than merely defective service.

The Court reaffirmed the approach in Abdul Qayoom Sheikh v. Sajad Haider, that a court must be satisfied about lawful service of summons before invoking the stringent consequence under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

The decision protects the procedural right of a defendant to receive the legally prescribed summons before the statutory deadline for filing a defence is allowed to expire.

The ruling makes clear that knowledge of a suit is not, by itself, the same thing as lawful service of summons where the statute specifically makes the service of summons the starting point for the limitation period.

The Court did not strike down the adapted 120-day provision. In fact, it noted that the validity of that amendment was under challenge in other proceedings, but that Rama Rani had not challenged its validity. Her case turned on the absence of valid summons service.

The judgment reinforces that the stringent 120-day consequence under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC can be invoked only after the foundational requirement of lawful service of summons under Order V CPC has been satisfied.