1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.2156 OF 2009 Bank of India .. Plaintiff Versus Laxmikant J. Dhotre & Anr. .. Defendants Mr.J.Girish Nair for plaintiff. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : December 18, 2009. P.C.: 1] The suit is by a bank against both, the borrower and guarantor. The borrower has executed a demand promisory note whereas the guarantor has signed and executed the deed of guarantee. All this was in pursuance of a written application for loan and on the terms and conditions being agreed. 2] In the light of the default committed by the defendants that a demand notice was issued to both borrower and guarantor and ultimately this suit is filed. From a reading of the averments in the plaint, I am satisfied that the claim is maintainable under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. 2 From a perusal of the original documents I am further satisfied that the plaintiff can recover a sum of Rs.1,36,401/- as per the particulars of claim. 3] From the uncontroverted averments and more particularly in paras 15 and 16 of the plaint and finding that the claim is within limitation, I take the original documents on record. The same are marked as “X” for identification. Affidavit proving service is also taken on record and marked “X-1”. 4] The defendants have failed to appear before the Court despite receipt of writ of summons. In terms of legal provisions the plaintiff is entitled to a judgement and decree in its favour. Therefore, the suit is decreed in terms of the prayers in the plaint. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Advocates’ Cost to be computed as per rules. Refund of court fees, if permissible, as per rules. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)