* 1 * W.P.-2240/2003 21.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2240 OF 2003 C.R. Paranjape ........Petitioner V/S. Mrs. Aruna Nahar through her Constituted Power of Attorney Shri. Raju Navnath Gaikwad .......Respondent * * * * Mr. A.A. Garge, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 21 September, 2010. P.C. : 1. This Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing of the order dated 20th March, 2001 passed by the IVth Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune arising out of Suit filed under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner is the defendant * 2 * W.P.-2240/2003 21.9.2010 to the suit. He had filed an application at Exhibit-11 for leave to defend the suit. By the impugned order, the learned trial judge allowed the application and granted leave to defend on condition that the petitioner deposits the principal amount claimed in the suit of Rs. 1,40,000/- within one month from the date of the order. 2. The petitioner contends that one of the grounds taken up by her to contest the Summons for Judgment, as also, to seek leave to defend was that the suit is barred by the law of limitation, which has not been considered in the impugned order. The petitioner had given a cheque in the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- dated 18th January, 1996 to the respondent. When this cheque was presented for payment, it was dishonoured on 10th May, 1997. The respondent received the memo of dishonour on 16th May, 1997. Thereafter, he served notice of demand dated 30th May 1997 which was received by the petitioner on 4th June, 1997. The respondent filed suit for recovery of the amount under the cheque on 12th June, 2000. 3. Mr. Garge, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, the cause of action for the respondent to file the suit arosed on dishonour of the cheque on 16th May 1997 when he received intimation * 3 * W.P.-2240/2003 21.9.2010 of dishonour. Item-32 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, provides for period of limitation of 3 years for filing the suit from the date on which the Bill of Exchange is presented. Therefore, the respondent ought to have filed suit within a period of 3 years from 10th May 1997 or atleast on 16th May 1997. The suit filed on 12th June 2000 is clearly barred by the law of limitation. In that circumstance, the trial court ought to have granted unconditional leave to the petitioner to defend the suit. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned order 20th March, 2001 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune is set aside. The application, below Exhibit-11 filed by the petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is granted unconditional leave to defend Summary Civil Suit No.74 of 2000. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]