BHAGWAN MUKUND ASOLKAR Vs. NAKUL BABLO ASOLKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners take exception to the order dated 26th March, 2009 rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to file written statement in Civil Suit No.43/2008 pending before the Ad hoc District Judge I, Panaji beyond the period of 90 days from the date of service of summons.

(2.) The petitioners are the defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 in the suit filed by the respondent No.1. The petitioners were served with the summons on 1st July, 2008. On 3rd July, 2008, 19th July, 2008, 18th August, 2008 and 28th August, 2008, the petitioners sought time to file written statement, which was granted by the Ad hoc District Judge -I. On 17th September, 2008, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. No settlement could be arrived at before the Lok Adalat and as such, on 17th January, 2009, the matter was sent back to the Court. The trial Court issued notices to the parties to appear on 12th March, 2009. On 12th March, 2009, the petitioners sought time to file written statement. The matter was adjourned to 26th March, 2009. On 26th March, 2009 again, the application was filed by the Associate of the Advocate appearing for the petitioners seeking further time on the ground that on account of personal difficulty, the written statement could not be prepared. The prayer for time was rejected by the learned trial Judge on the ground that no exceptional case was made out for extending time to file written statement beyond 90 days. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application seeking review, which was dismissed by the learned trial Judge by order dated 20th November, 2009.

(3.) Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the matter was pending before the Lok Adalat, the learned trial Judge ought to have extended the time beyond 90 days and serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if they are not allowed to file the written statement. According to Mr. Menezes, exceptional circumstances do exist justifying filing of the written statement beyond the period of 90 days. He further submitted that on account of the fact that the date fixed on 26th March, 2009 was not informed to the Advocate appearing for the petitioners, the written statement could not be filed and as such, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer on account of mistake of their Advocate.