-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1014 OF 1993. State Bank of Tranvancore. ..Plaintiff. Versus M/s. Rahul Industries & Anr. ..Defendants. Mr. C. D. Patel i/b Mr. N. S. Fadia for the plaintiff. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : January 28, 2010. P. C. : 1. This summary suit is filed under the provisions of the Order-XXXVII Rule-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,58,316.50 paise with further interest @ 24.25% p.a from the defendants. The writ of summons and true copy of the plaint was served on the defendant on 16th May 1995. The plaintiff has filed service affidavit, alongwith an acknowledgment duly signed by the defendant. Inspite of service, the defendant has not appeared in the aforesaid summary suit, and therefore suit is placed on board under the caption “ex-parte decree”. 2. The plaintiff has filed list of documents alongwith original documents. It is the case of the plaintiff that in pursuance of the request of the defendants, in the month of April 1990 the plaintiff granted facility of temporary overdraft of Rs. 1 lac in their current account to enable the defendants to tide over their purely temporary business exigencies and the said advance was repayable on demand. The defendants with a view to secure the due repayment of the said facility, executed and delivered to the plaintiffs the demand promissory note -: 2 :- dated 6th April 1990 for Rs. 1 lacs and letter of Continuing Security dated 6th April 1990. The defendant thereafter failed and neglected to deposit any sums in their said account after 31st March 1990 inspite of oral and written requests to them. Ultimately the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 10th August 1993 calling upon the defendants to pay the outstanding loan amount. Since this notice was not replied to, the plaintiff was constrained to file the aforesaid summary suit. 3. I have gone through the contents of the plaint. I have also perused the original documents, namely, Demand Promissory Note dated 6th April 1990, Letter of continuing security dated 6th April 1990, plaintiff’s advocate notice dated 10th August 1992 and statement of accounts duly certified under the Banker’s Books of Evidence Act. In the absence of any contest to the above contentions by the defendant, the plaintiff’s case stands proved. Apart from this, the plaintiff is also entitled to decree in view of the provisions of Order-XXXVII Rule-2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the defendants are deemed to have admitted the plaintiff’s case. Suit is, therefore, decree in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b). Decree be drawn up accordingly. (R.V. MORE, J.)