IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.1854 OF 2008 Tejraj R. Mehta .. Plaintiff Vs. Suresh Jijaba Misal & Anr. .. Defendants Mr.Ramesh Jain for the plaintiff. None for the defendants. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 17th October 2008. : 17th October 2008. : 17th October 2008. P.C.: . The suit is set down on board under the caption of "For exparte decree". The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff states that he is not pressing the suit as against the 2nd defendant. 2. Affidavit of service of writ of summons issued under sub rule 2 of Rule 2 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed. It is stated that the defendants have not entered appearance. 3. The suit is based on a bill of exchange dated 15th November 2007 drawn by the 1st defendant for valuable consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- received from the plaintiff and directing thereby, the 2nd defendant to pay to the plaintiff or order at Mumbai a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-. The bill of exchange was accepted by the 2nd defendant. Though the said bill of exchange was 2 presented by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant, the same was dishonoured by the 2nd defendant. Thereafter the 1st defendant has not paid the amount. A legal notice was issued to the defendants calling upon them to pay the amount. However, there has been no response to the said legal notice. 4. The plaintiffs have placed on record the original bill of exchange, an office copy of the demand notice and returned envelopes of the demand notice. Considering the said documents and averments made in the plaint, a case is made out for passing a decree. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The suit stands decreed as prayed as against the 1st defendant. (ii) The suit stands dismissed as against the 2nd defendant as withdrawn. (iii) The plaintiff will be entitled to refund of court fees as per the rules. (iv) Certified copy is expedited. 3 (A.S.Oka,J)