Report No. 144
It appears to us that the latter view is preferable. The object of serving a summons on the defendant is to make him aware of the nature and details of the claim. Strictly speaking, it is the plaint that gives the real case. The summons is only incidental to the plaint. Even if the defendant may otherwise have received casual information about the litigation, that cannot constitute sufficient notice of its details.
No one can assess with reasonable fullness the nature and dimensions of the litigation without a copy of the plaint or, if so permitted, a concise statement. We would, therefore recommend that the Orissa view should be adopted and suitably codified. The object could be achieved by inserting in Order 9, rule 13 a further proviso below the proviso quoted above as under:-
"Provided also, that notwithstanding anything contained in the above proviso where a copy of the plaint or concise statement has not been attached to the summons as required by rule 2 of Order V, such omission shall be deemed to be sufficient cause for seitipg aside a decree passed ex parte."