1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.57 OF 1984 Bank of Maharashtra .. Plaintiff Versus M/s.Attempt Engineering & Ors. .. Defendants WITH SUIT NO.58 OF 1984 Bank of Maharashtra .. Plaintiff Versus M/s.Attempt Engineering & Ors. .. Defendants. Mr.Sunil Shewale i/b. Ghanekar & Co. for plaintiff None for defendants. 2 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th December 2008 P.C. . In this suit after the plaint and written statement were perused, issues were framed on 23rd February 2006 and directions were given for filing of affidavit of documents. 2. It is clear from the order passed by me on 10th November 2008 that at the stage of framing of issues defendants were represented by an Advocate. 3. Subsequently, when the affidavit of documents and originals along with compilation were to be filed so also affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, the defendants were not present and even their Advocate was not available. In such circumstances, I have 3 reecorded in my earleir orders that plaintiffs’ Advocate served a copy of affidavit of documents and examination in chief on the defendants. There is an acknowledgement evidencing receipt of these documents. I have recorded that the defendants and their Advocates have remained absent and did not avail of the opportunity to cross examine plaintiffs’ witness. It is in such circumstances, that I placed the matter for passing of ex parte decree on 26th November 2008 and 3rd December 2008. None appears for the defendants nor are their Advocates present, although their name appears on board. 4. These are Bank suits wherein the bank is seeking to recover amounts under certain facilities which have been extended by the plaintiff bank to the defendants. Defendants in the respective suits are either principal debtors and guarantors or were the constituents of plaintiffs and they were extended certain credit 4 facilities as set out in the respective plaints. In October 1972, they applied for the loan which was granted and the facility was continued/extended. There was an agreement to pay interest. There also was an execution of promisory note in favour of the plaintiffs. The sums became due and payable after the period for which the facility was extended expired. There was a demand made on the defendants but they failed to comply therewith. 5. There is a letter of confirmation, confirming the debt and acknowledging the liability. The notice of demand was issued prior to the institution of suit and since there was no compliance with the requisitions contained therein, the suit has been filed. 6. Mr.Vijay Krishna Patne, an officer of the concerned branch of Plaintiff has filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and has 5 confirmed the averments in the plaint. He has specifically confirmed the execution of the demand promisory note, letters of confirmation as are set out in the plaint. He also has stated that these documents were executed after the facilities were extended during the ordinary and regular course of business. The original application for loan, original promisory note and the letters of confirmation are produced by him. He has stated that the contents of the documents were read over and after perusing and understanding the same, the defendants have put their signatures. He has also stated that the Account with regard to the concerned loan is prepared and the figures therein are taken from the books which are maintained during the ordinary and regular course of banking business. Each of the original documents are produced to substantiate the averments in the plaint. Contents thereof are also proved as stated in the affidavit in lieu of examination in cheif in both 6 the suits. Despite filing written statement, defendants have not come forward to cross examine the plaintiffs’ witness. There is thus no objection raised to the admissibility of the documents. Each of the documents are, therefore, taken on record and exhibited collectively. There is no cross examination and, therefore, the version of the plaintiffs has gone uncontroverted. 7. Considering the averments in the plaint and perusing the documents, it is clear that the suit claim is within limitation inasmuch as the letters of confirmation and acknowledgement of liabilities would save bar of limitation. Further the suit claim is maintainable before this Court. Some of the defendants are carrying on business in Mumbai. The entire cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. In such circumstances, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The issues that have 7 been framed by the Court clearly show that all that the plaintiffs have to prove is as to whether plaintiffs have executed the documents pertaining to loan facility. Considering that the documents are proved so also the Books are maintained in ordinary and regular course of business that the amount mentioned in the particulars of claim is computed on the basis of the same, it is clear that the plaintiffs have proved their claim. Rest of the issues completely cast burden on the defendants and they have remained absent as stated above. 8. In these circumstances, the suits are decreed as prayed. Advocates cost to be computed as per rules. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)