IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1676 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO. 1676 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO. 1676 OF 2007 IN IN IN APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 315 OF 2006 NO. 315 OF 2006 NO. 315 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUMMONS SUMMONS SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 616 OF 2005 FOR JUDGMENT NO. 616 OF 2005 FOR JUDGMENT NO. 616 OF 2005 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUMMARY SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2139 OF 2005 SUIT NO. 2139 OF 2005 SUIT NO. 2139 OF 2005 Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals ] .. Appellant Versus Equipar Srl., ] .. Respondent Mr. Chetan Kapadia with Mr. Mihir Mody i/b M/s.K. Ashar & Co. for the applicants/respondents. Mr. Sandip Parikh i/b M/s. Deven Dwarkadas & Partners for the appellants to show cause. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & R.V. MORE, JJ. DATED: 29TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. On a perusal of paragraph 8 of the Notice of Motion, we find that in order to defeat the case made out by the appellant in the appeal, these documents are being sought to be brought on record. It is not the case of the applicants that the documents were not available when the Summary Suit was filed. Therefore, : 2 : the case which is tried to be made out is not covered under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. Notice of Motion is, accordingly, rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE, J.] MORE, J.] MORE, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]