acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 25 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3235 OF 2007 Duncan Stone Company …Plaintiff. Vs. Smita Rajesh Nisar …Defendant. AND SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 24 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3231 OF 2007 Duncan Stone Company …Plaintiff. Vs. Rajesh N. Nisar …Defendant. --- Ms. Kavita Shah i/b Arvind G. Shah, for the Plaintiff in both suits. Mr. N.S. Fadia, for the Defendant in both the suits. ---- CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED: 31 ST AUGUST 2009 P.C.: 1. Summary Suit No.3231 of 2007 is filed against the husband of the Defendant in Summary Suit No.3235 of 2007. Summary Suit No.3235 of 2007 is filed to recover the price of the goods sold and delivered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on the terms and conditions contained in and evidenced by the suit invoices. In respect thereof, the Defendant in Summary Suit no.3235 of 2007 had issued five cheques of the aggregate value of 1 Rs.4,76,134/-. Two of the cheques were honoured for which credit has been given. Three cheques were dishonoured. The Suit is therefore filed for the balance value of the goods sold and delivered. 2. Summary Suit No.3231 of 2007 is filed against the husband of the Defendant in Summary Suit No.3235 of as he had issued a cheque for the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the dues of his wife the Defendant in Summary Suit No.3235 of 2007. This cheque was dishonoured. The suit is therefore based on the dishonoured cheque. 3. There is no affidavit-in-reply despite the fact that several opportunities have been given to the Defendant in both the suits to file a reply. Mr. Fadia, however, argued on a demurer as he was indeed entitled to even without filing a reply. 4. In respect of Summary Suit No.3235 of 2007, no defence was raised. However, in respect of Summary Suit No.3231 of 2007, it was contended that there was no consideration for the cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- issued by the Defendant thereof. The submission is not well-founded. The cheque was admittedly issued in discharge of the dues of the Defendant in Summary Suit No.3235 of 2007. There is therefore adequate consideration for the same. 5. The only thing is that the Plaintiff obviously cannot recover a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- claimed in Summary Suit No.3231 of 2007 again in Summary Suit No.3235 of 2007. The Plaintiff has therefore made a submission that in the event the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest thereon being 2 recovered in either of the suits, the Defendant in the other suit would be entitled to credit for the same in the other suit. 6. Subject to the above clarification there is no defence in either suit. 7. Subject to the above clarification in both the suits, leave to defend is refused. The Summons for Judgment in both the suits are accordingly made absolute and both Summary Suits are decreed as prayed. Refund as per rules. 3