1 ss35group SSP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.35 OF 2009 State Bank of India ...Plaintiffs vs. Fulchand R. Mantage ...Defendant ALONG WITH SUMMARY SUIT NO.48 OF 2009 State Bank of India ...Plaintiffs vs. Sudhir Tukaram Lad & Ors. ...Defendants ALONG WITH SUMMARY SUIT NO.380 OF 2009 State Bank of India ...Plaintiffs vs. Anil Bhagoji Tambe ...Defendant ALONG WITH SUMMARY SUIT NO.1075 OF 2009 State Bank of India ...Plaintiffs vs. Kalpana Chavan & Anr. ...Defendants ALONG WITH SUMMARY SUIT NO.1329 OF 2009 State Bank of India ...Plaintiffs vs. Rajendra Nanji Tanna ...Defendant Mr.Prasad Das i/b M/s.Goenka Law Associates for the plaintiffs None for the defendants CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 24, 2011 2 ss35group P.C.: 1 The suit is shown under the caption For Exparte Decree . The learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that the affidavit of service of writ of summons has been filed and the appearance has not been entered by the defendant/s within the time stipulated by law. 2 Perused the original documents. In view of sub rule 3 of rule 2 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 the plaintiffs are entitled to decree as prayed. Accordingly, the suit stands decreed as prayed. However, interest will be simple interest payable per annum. 3 The plaintiffs will be entitled to refund of court fee as per the rules. JUDGE