1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3274 OF 2008 M/s. Olympia Games and Toys Limited ....Plaintiff Versus M/s. Parul Toys Agencies ....Defendant Mr. Prashant Thakare i/b. Mr. Suresh M. Jain for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendant. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the Plaintiff. None appears for the Defendant. 2. Perused the documents filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. The above summary suit is filed against the Defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.89,400/- alongwith further interest on Rs. 70,205/- at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit. 3. Initially, the writ of summons was issued to the Defendant and the Office of the Sheriff despatched registered packet containing true copy of the plaint alongwith the writ of summons for service upon the Defendant under R.P.AD. packet No.1655. However, the Office of the Sheriff, did not receive either the acknowledgment of the said packet or the unserved R.P.AD. packet. In view of the above, this Court by an order dated 10th August, 2009, directed the Office to reissue writ of summons to the Defendant and made it returnable after six weeks. 2 4. The learned Counsel for the Defendant has filed an affidavit of service of one - Kisan Naik, Clerk, working in the Office of the Deputy Sheriff of Bombay. The Affidavit shows that the Defendant was served with copy of the plaint alongwith duplicate writ of summons. The acknowledgment receipt is also annexed at exhibit "A" to the affidavit of service. The acknowledgment receipt shows that the Defendant is served with duplicate writ of summons alongwith copy of the plaint on 12th September, 2009. 5. Inspite of service of the duplicate writ of summons alongwith copy of the plaint, the Defendant has not bothered to put an appearance in the above suit. In that view of the matter, the Defendant is deemed to have admitted the contents of the plaint and the Plaintiff is entitled for decree in view of the provisions of sub-clause 3 of Order 37 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit is accordingly decreed with cost in terms of prayer clause (a) of the plaint. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)