1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. SUIT NO.1233 OF 1997 Manisha R. Munot ..Plaintiff. Vs. Unit Trust of India and another ..Defendants. .... Mr. Venkatesh Kunduru i/b M/s. Kunduru & Kunduru for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 26th August, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Plaintiff has sought a declaration that she is the owner of 15,200 shares of the UTI Master Gain of the First Defendant more particularly listed in Exhibit C to the Plaint and is seeking a decree against the First and Second Defendants to issue and deliver the shares or, in the alternate, duplicate share certificates. The Defendants have been served with the writ of summons but have not entered appearance or filed the written statement. In these circumstances, the suit has been listed an an undefended suit for an ex parte decree. By an order dated 2 12th August, 2009 passed in Chamber Summons 1226 of 2009 this Court had granted permission to the Plaintiff to lead secondary evidence. Accordingly an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the Plaintiff is filed together with a compilation of the documents. The case of the Plaintiff is that in December, 1992 she had purchased 39,900 units of Master Gain – 1992 of the First Defendant for consideration. The shares were transferred in the name of the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff claims to have received only 22,800 shares while the balance of 15,200 shares were not received. By a letter dated 21st August, 1996 the Second Defendant was requested to stop the transfer of the suit shares. The letter was duly received and acknowledged by the Second Defendant. The Plaintiff has claimed that she is a bonafide purchaser and holder of the suit shares and entitled to have them transferred in her name. The Plaintiff has stated that she has not sold, transferred or alienated the suit shares to any person and the shares seem to have been either misplaced in transit or stolen. Since no written statement has been filed, the averments contained in the Plaint and the evidence adduced in support of the claim have not been controverted. 3 In these circumstances the suit shall stand decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d). There shall be a refund of Court fees, if any, as per rules. *****