Judgment 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. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao, dated 24.03.2011 whereby an application filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time to file the written statement came to be rejected as well as an order passed by the learned Judge dated 07.01.2012 whereby an application for review of the said order also came to be dismissed. 5. 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 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. 6. On the other hand, Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned orders. The learned Counsel points out that in case any documents were not supplied to the petitioner, it was open to the petitioner to seek certified copy of the documents and such lapse on the part of the petitioner would disentitle the petitioner to seek any extension of time to file the written statement. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the petitioner is unnecessarily dragging and delaying the matter by not filing the written statement and as such no leniency can be shown to the petitioner due to his attitude. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned orders and pointed out that the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsels and also perused the records. It is not in dispute that on 16.11.2010, an application came to be filed by the petitioner to direct the respondent to supply the copies of some documents relied upon by the respondent. Such application was allowed and until the impugned order was passed on 24.03.2011, the documents had not been supplied to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that on 16.11.2010, an application came to be filed by the petitioner to direct the respondent to supply the copies of some documents relied upon by the respondent. Such application was allowed and until the impugned order was passed on 24.03.2011, the documents had not been supplied to the petitioner. Shri Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent fairly stated that the respondent had not brought any material on record to disclose that the said order was complied with. This itself shows that the petitioner was entitled for extension of time to file written statement considering the ratio laid down by this Court in the judgment in the case of Mrs. Aldas Valezia Tereza Mergulhao and Anr. (Supra ). 8. Taking note of the contention of Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the petitioner is unnecessarily dragging and delaying the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as the petitioner otherwise could have filed the written statement by availing the recourse available in law for not being supplied with such copies of the documents which the records reveal he failed to do so, I find it appropriate in such circumstances that liberty to file written statement is to be granted to the petitioner subject to payment of costs. Such costs are quantified at Rs.7500/-. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated herein above, I find that the learned Judge has acted in material irregularity whilst passing the impugned orders and refusing the petitioner extension of time to file the written statement. Hence, the impugned orders dated 24.03.2011 and 07.01.2012 cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The impugned orders dated 24.03.2011 & 07.01.2012 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner is permitted to file the written statement within one month from today subject to payment of costs to the respondent deposited in this Court. (iii) The respondent is accordingly permitted to withdraw the amount of costs of Rs.7500/-deposited in this Court by the petitioner. Registry is directed to act accordingly. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (v) The petition stands disposed of accordingly.