AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Rule. By consent heard forthwith.
All these four petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since identical orders have been challenged by the Petitioners and the facts are identical.
By these petitions the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 28.1.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, in Special Civil Suit No. 74/1999/III, Special Civil Suit No. 75/1999/III, Special Civil Suit No. 76/1999/III and Special Civil Suit No. 77/1999/III, which were filed by the Petitioners herein against the respondents/defendants.
The Petitioners filed the above suits for declaration and for taking accounts. The Petitioners filed four different applications dated 20.10.2009 in four different suits, mentioned above seeking direction to the Income Tax Department to depute any responsible official to produce balance sheets of the firms for the financial years 1993 to 2005. The said applications were objected to on behalf of the defendants. The learned trial Judge by the impugned orders dismissed the said applications, primarily on the ground that the plaintiffs had not mentioned the year to which the balance sheet relates and had not sought leave of the Court either to reply or to produce the same on record.
Perusal of the record discloses that in the year 2006 the plaintiffs had filed applications seeking leave to produce balance sheets of the financial years 1993 to 2005 and the said applications were allowed by the learned trial Judge by orders dated 3.2.2006. It appears that the learned trial Judge did not take notice of the said orders and passed the impugned order. Since the petitioners/plaintiffs were already granted leave to produce the balance sheets of the said firm for the financial years 1993 to 2005, by orders dated 3.2.2006 passed in the aforesaid suits, the learned trial Judge ought to have allowed the applications filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. The record clearly discloses jurisdictional error having been committed by the learned trial Judge while passing the impugned orders. The impugned orders discloses errors of law apparent on the face of the record which warrant interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The impugned orders dated 28.1.2010 which are clearly unsustainable in law are liable to be set aside.
In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 28.1.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, in Special Civil Suits Nos. 74/1999/III, No. 75/1999/III, No. 76/III/1999 and No. 77/1999/III are quashed and set aside and the applications dated 20.10.2009 filed by the plaintiffs in all the four suits are allowed. The learned trial Judge shall issue necessary directions to the Income Tax Department to produce the balance sheets of the firm which are sought to be produced by the plaintiffs.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.