-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS SUMMONS SUMMONS FOR FOR FOR JUDGMENT NO.523 OF 2006 JUDGMENT NO.523 OF 2006 JUDGMENT NO.523 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUMMARY SUMMARY SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.2302 OF 2006 NO.2302 OF 2006 NO.2302 OF 2006 Ganpatlal M. Jain ...Plaintiff v/s Supreme Alloys Industry and ors. ...Defendants Ms Sandhya Amin for Plaintiff. Ms Latarani Roy i/b M/s Roys Law Firm for Defendants. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH J. DATE : 16TH JANUARY 2007. -2- P.C. :- 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of the price of the goods which are supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has produced the documents on the basis of which the plaintiff claims that the goods were supplied to the defendants. Perusal of the documents shows that the defendants placed orders for supply of the goods with the plaintiff, the plaintiff supplied the goods and the defendants have certified that they have received the goods in good condition. Perusal of the documents on record shows that the plaintiff sent statement of accounts to the defendants for confirmation and the defendants confirmed the same. There was a notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants demanding the amount. In the notice, the plaintiff specifically referred to the acknowledgment of liability by confirmation of statement of accounts by the defendants. The reply sent by the defendants to the notice shows that the defendants were raising dispute about the quality of the goods for the first time in reply sent in February 2006 though the goods were received long back and on each delivery memo, the defendants have acknowledged that they have received the goods in good condition. Admittedly, the defendants have been served with the summons for judgment on 7th -3- December 2006. admittedly, within a period of ten days allowed by Order XXXVII of C.P.C., the defendants have done nothing, neither filed application for leave to defend nor approached the plaintiff seeking inspection of the documents. The learned counsel appearing for defendants sought time to file reply in the summons for judgment on the ground that the inspection of documents by the defendants is incomplete. In my opinion, the defendants are not entitled to grant of any time to file reply. In view of the provisions of Order XXXVII of C.P.C., after being served with the summons for judgment, the least that the defendants should have done was to approach the plaintiff and seek inspection of documents. If according to the defendants, inspection of documents on which the plaintiff relies was necessary, it was for the defendants to file application for leave to defend. Admittedly the defendants have not done that and the learned counsel appearing for defendants is not in a position to give any explanation except that it was her mistake not to seek inspection within the period of ten days. In views of the time schedule given by Order XXXVII of C.P.C., in my opinion, the Court cannot permit litigants to differ from that time schedule without there being valid reason. In the absence of reply therefore, really speaking the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment because the defendants have not applied for leave to defend nor have -4- they applied to the Court seeking extension of time to file reply. Perusal of the plaint and the documents filed with the plaint shows that the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree. Summons for judgment is therefore granted, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Refund of court fees as per rules. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary as true copy. . Certified copy expedited. ----------