SANTAN FERNANDES Vs. DAVID ARUN PINTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) This is a petition impugning an order dated 2.12.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Mapusa rejecting an application for condonation of delay in taking the written statement of the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 on record in Regular Civil Suit No.63/06/c.

(3.) The facts of the case are that in a suit filed by the plaintiffs, the summons to answer the plaint were issued on 22.3.2006. After receipt of the summons, the defendants appeared and filed their appearance through an advocate on 28.3.06. Though the exact date of service of summons is not on record before this Court, it is clear that the summons were served between 22.3.06 and 28.3.06. The extended 90 days period for filing the written statement would, therefore, expire between 21.6.06 and 28.6.06. The written statement along with the application for condonation of delay ultimately came to be filed on 22.8.06. By the impugned order dated 2.12.2006, the trial court refused to condone the delay and consequently, did not permit the filing of the written statement on record.