The respondent, however, contended that the petitioner had been duly served with the interim injunction order and related documents on January 7, 2023, and that the 120-day period began from that date. “The service of an ex parte order of temporary injunction cannot be equated with the service of summons contemplated under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure,” the Court held. The judgment further observed that Order V CPC lays down a detailed and mandatory procedure governing issuance and service of summons, including furnishing a copy of the plaint, obtaining acknowledgment of service and compliance with prescribed modes of service. Holding that the trial court had erroneously treated service of the injunction order as effective service of summons and wrongly relied upon an earlier judgment decided on distinguishable facts, the High Court set aside the impugned order. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with law, with the parties directed to appear before the trial court on August 10, 2026.