M MAHADEV Vs. RAJSHEKHARIYYA PADADAYYA HIREMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri V. Menezes, and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) RULE. Heard forthwith by consent of learned Counsels.

(3.) SHRI Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner was served with the summons in the suit on 30.10.2010 and the petitioner appeared before the learned Judge on 16.11.2010. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that on the said date, an application came to be filed by the petitioner to the effect that the respondent has not delivered the copies of the annexures to the plaint. The said application came to be allowed. But however, the learned Counsel submitted that such documents were not supplied by the respondent until the impugned order came to be passed by the learned Judge dated 24.03.2011. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that an application for review of the said order was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the said order to furnish the documents was not complied with which came to be rejected on 07.01.2012. SHRI Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further pointed out that this Court has held in the judgment reported in 2006(2) AIR Bom. R 330 in the case of Mrs. Aldas Valezia Tereza Mergulhao and Anr. V/s Joaquim Jeronimo de Almeida & Ors., that unless and until the copies of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are supplied to the defendant, the question of filing written statement within a period of 90 days from the date of summons would not arise. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that this Court has held that such a period of 90 days is to be considered from the date such documents have been supplied to the defendant. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that it is not in dispute that the documents were not supplied to the petitioner until the impugned orders came to be passed. The learned Counsel as such submits that the learned Judge has erroneously exercised the jurisdiction by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner which calls for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that though this aspect was brought to the notice of the learned Judge by filing review application nevertheless, the application for review also came to be dismissed by order dated 07.01.2012. The learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be permitted to file the written statement.