ASHA ARUN KARANDE Vs. ANKUSH RAJARAM NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri S.S. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. A. Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1(a) to 1(g) and Shri J. Vaz, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 & 3. Admit on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) SHRI S.S. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that according to the learned Counsel the claim put forward by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 herein is for a specific sum of money and according to him such claim is barred by law of limitation. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the lower Appellate Court has not at all considered the said aspect whilst disposing of the appeal preferred by the appellant. The learned Counsel further pointed out that according to the appellant, they had supplied the material to the respondent no.1 for the purpose of carrying out work and that the appellant had filed an application to produce some receipts with regard to the payments on such account being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.220/2007 under Order 41 Rule of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Counsel further pointed out that whilst considering the said application, this Court by an order dated 9/08/2007 had directed that the application would be considered at the time of the final hearing of the appeal preferred by the appellant. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the said documents have not been considered the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court stands vitiated. The learned Counsel further pointed out that even on merits the appellant is not liable to pay any amount to respondent no.1.

(3.) SHRI J. Vaz, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3 has supported the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the respondents have also produced other material in support of their contention that respondent no.1 is not entitled to claim the amount as decreed by the Courts below.