IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.917 of 2006 BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Versus VIMAL PRATAP SINHA & ANR ----------- 5. 20.10.2008 Heard Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned Standing counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board and its Officers. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the summons in terms of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. was never served on the petitioners, defendants to the suit, and as a matter of fact the injunction was also rejected ex-parte, whereafter in appeal only when notices were issued to the petitioners then alone they had appeared and contested the appeal and the appeal was also withdrawn. Mr. Singh, therefore, submits that when the summons were not served on the petitioners and a copy of the plaint was made available only on 30.5.2005 on the counsel for the Board steps were taken for preparation of the written statement which was filed on 16.1.2006 but in the meantime the court below by the order dated 31.8.2005 had already debarred the petitioners, defendants in the court below, from filing 2 the written statement on the ground that the period as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. had already expired. In the impugned order also these aspects have not been taken into consideration and therefore, this Court in stead of interfering with the impugned order would remit the matter back to the court below to find out as to whether as a matter of fact the summons were served on the petitioners or not. In the event it is found that the summons were never served, as has been also sought to be established from the copy of the entire order sheet of the suit filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit, the court below will recall its order and accept the written statement. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/