abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 404 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1704 OF 2006 Dinesh Dharamshi Khutiya @ Shah .. Plaintiff V/s Vasant Pandit .. Defendant Mr.Amit Yadav for the Plaintiff. Mr.Sanjay Sinha for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J, VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 17TH JULY 2008 P.C.: 1. This suit is filed to recover the price for the goods sold and delivered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. Sales were as per the invoices and delivery challans. There is no dispute that 42 invoices had been raised and that the delivery challans had been signed. It is however contended that the Plaintiff’s contractor signed the delivery challans. It is not denied that the contractor was appointed by the Plaintiff. It is not denied that the goods were delivered at the site of the Defendant’s - 2 - contractor. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the defence that the goods were not delivered to the Defendant. 2. It was submitted that the suit is barred by limitation as the invoices were raised between 3rd January 2002 and 17th October 2002 and the suit was filed only on 19th April 2006. However, admittedly, part payment in the sum of Rs.2,04,168/- was made by a cheque dated 28th July 2003. There was no direction as to the mode or manner of appropriation/ adjustment. The Plaintiff was justified in adjusting the part payment on account. The bar of limitation, if any, is therefore saved. 3. There is no other defence to the suit. 4. In the circumstances, the Summons for Judgment is made absolute and the suit is decreed as prayed. Refund as per rules.