P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.

1. Issue Rule.

2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 16.3.2016 passed by the Trial Court rejecting I.A. No. IX filed on his behalf under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 312 days in filing the written statement.

3. Heard Sri Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for the caveator/respondent No. 1.

4. The first respondent - plaintiff has filed O.S. No. 171/2014 with following prayers:-

"(a) For a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents or anybody claiming through or under them from making/publishing defamatory statements or any statements photos, pictures, articles relating to Plaintiff/applicant tending to damage the reputation of the plaintiff,

(b) Directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- towards the damages to the Plaintiff,

(c) Cost of the suit,

(d) Such other and further reliefs as the court deems fit to grant."

5. Petitioner entered appearance in the suit through his Advocate on 13.3.2013 by filing Vakalathnama. He filed I.A. No. V under Section 151 CPC with a prayer to direct the plaintiff to furnish copies of the plaint documents to enable him to file written statement. It is contended by the petitioner in the affidavit that as many as 43 documents were annexed to the plaint and the same were not given to him. It is further contended that the petitioner is a retired Judge of this Court and High Court of Maharashtra (sic Bombay). He is presently associated with the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Government of India in the process of judicial reforms. In view of his engagements, he could not be expected to go to Mangaluru and take inspection of the documents either from the Court records or from plaintiffs office. Hence, he has filed I.A. No. V seeking a direction to the plaintiff to furnish the documents relied upon by him in the suit. The said I.A. was resisted by the plaintiff by filing objections. The trial Court rejected the said I.A.V.

6. The petitioner also filed I.A. No. VI under Section 148 CPC with a prayer to extend time by 30 days to file written statement. The said I.A. was allowed on 10.4.2015 granting time to file written statement.

7. On 18.2.2016, petitioner filed his written statement along with I.A. No. IX with a prayer to condone delay of 312 days in filing the written statement and to receive the same. The affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. IX reads as follows:-

"I, JUSTICE MICHAEL F. SALDANHA, Indian inhabitant, aged 73 years, residing at 401, Silvercrest, 13, Rest House Road, Bangalore - 560 001, state on solemn affirmation as follows:

1. I say that I am the Defendant No. 5 above named. I say that this is a very important case wherein the decision will create many precedents, the first of them being as to how this case has been entertained from a professional who is himself facing a Criminal Prosecution for having tendered an admittedly forged document in a Judicial Proceeding in this very Court apart from a long list of Criminal activities and misconduct, despite which, he is able to secure a Blank Injunction Order against the media which Order overrides legalities and constitutional provisions. I propose to seriously contest these proceedings but I am handicapped from doing so because the Plaintiff relies on over two dozen documents of which copies are not furnished to the Defendants which is a basic requirement of Law. I had instructed my Ld. Advocate to apply to the Court for a direction that the Plaintiffs should be ordered to furnish Certified Copies of whatever documents he is relying on but I am informed that the Application was rejected. I say that this is a case in which the High Court has directed a Criminal Prosecution against the Plaintiff for offences of forgery and user of a forged documents and that there is nothing that comes from him