IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINRY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4201 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3074 of 2002 Jayantilal V. Choudhary Prop.M/s. Bhavarlal & Co. ... Plaintiff Vs. M/s. Panchal Precision Works Pvt.Ltd. ... Defendants. Mr. K.R.Tiwari for defendants in support of the motion. None for the plaintiff. CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J DATE : JUNE 22, 2009 P.C. 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out to set aside ex parte decree dated 16.11.2005. The suit was filed against the defendants for recovery of Rs.1,49,321/- plus interest in respect of the goods supplied by the plaintiff to defendants. 2. The case of the defendants in the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion is that the Writ of Summons and Summons for Judgment were not served upon the defendants and the defendants came to know about the ex parte decree dated 16.11.2005 on 20.10.2007 when the defendants received letter dated 19.9.2007 from the Advocate of the Plaintiff calling upon them to pay the decretal amount alongwith interest. 3. Reply has been filed opposing the Notice of Motion. In reply, it it stated that the Writ of Summons was duly served upon the defendants and that the defendants had engaged Advocate Shri K.S.Irani and said Advocate had filed his Vakalatnama dated 17th February, 2005. It is further stated that the Summons for Judgment was also served and the Registered Post A.D. Card carries the acknowledgment of the defendants. 4. Rejoinder has been filed, wherein it is again stated that- “ I say that neither the Writ of Summons nor the Summons for Judgment were served upon the defendants as such ex parte decree passed against the defendants is not binding upon them”. It is further stated that - “ they have not given any instructions to Mr. K.S.Irani to accept any Summons for Judgment on our behalf nor Mr. K.S. Irani intimated us about the Summons for Judgment having been served on him in the above matter.” 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the defendants. I have also perused the Vakalatnama dated 17th February, 2005 filed by Advocate Shri K.S.Irani, who appeared for the defendants. I have no hesitation in concluding that the contentions of the defendants in their Affidavit in Support of the Motion appear to be palpably false and unbelievable. 6. The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff within three weeks. [A.A.SAYED, J.]