:1: 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 SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 1348 OF 1984 NO. 1348 OF 1984 NO. 1348 OF 1984 The M.S.S.I.D.C. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. M/s. MABS Engg. Works & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. G.V. Bhagwat i/b. Divekar & Co. for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 24TH 24TH 24TH OCTOBER 2008. OCTOBER 2008. OCTOBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This is a Suit filed by the Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation to recover sum of Rs.33,700/-. 2. The Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation is a Government of Maharashtra Enterprise. It is registered as a Company under the Companies Act, 1956. It carried on business of providing financial assistance to small scale industries. The First Defendant is a partnership firm and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are partners. 3. The Writ of Summons in the Suit has been duly served. Despite Writ of Summons being duly served, no written statement has been filed by the Defendants. :2: 4. The Suit is pending in this Court for considerable length of time and all these years no steps have been taken to dispute the said claim or denying the averments in the plaint. The Plaintiffs have filed the original documents. They have also filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of their witness. 5. The Plaintiff’s witness has stated that in the ordinary and usual course of business the agreement dated 29th May 1974 and 27th September 1974 have been executed and entered into by parties. The Defendants by their letter dated 29th September 1974 have confirmed these agreements. They have admitted that they have borrowed seed money from the Plaintiffs and that they are liable to pay the sum. They are also admitting their liability to pay interest. The agreements have been duly signed by the Plaintiffs so also by the Defendants. The original agreements and the original of the letter dated 29th September 1974 are produced by the witnesses. He has proved their contents. 6. Although no written statement is filed, in answer to the Writ of Summons, there is no appearance or vakalatnama also filed. The Plaintiffs have deposed through their witness whose examination in chief is on affidavit. None has appeared on behalf of the Defendants to cross examine these witnesses. Thus, there is no :3: denial or dispute raised. In fact, from the documents on record it is apparent that the Defendants admit the execution thereof and also liability. 7. The original documents along with affidavit in lieu of examination in chief are taken on record and marked ‘A’ and ‘A-1’ collectively for identification. 8. Since the plaint averments are proved and there is no dispute or denial of the liability, the Suit can be decreed. Accordingly, there would be a decree as prayed. Advocates costs to be computed as per rules. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)