1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.662 OF 2005 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.716 OF 2005 M/s.Federal Impex. ...Plaintiff vs. Mohamed Azhar Alam & Another. ...Defendants. --- Mr.G.H.Shukla, for Plaintiff. Mr.E.A.Sasi, for Defendant no.2. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH,J. DATED: 5th June, 2006. P.C.:- 1. By consent of parties delay in filing affidavit in reply to summons for judgment by defendant no.2 , is condoned. 2. The plaintiff is claiming a decree against both the defendants. The suit is based on a cheque which is admittedly signed by defendant no.1. According to the plaintiff, the defendant no.2 is the partner of defendant no.1 and that cheque was delivered by defendant no.2. But admittedly no partnership deed is produced on record to 2 establish that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the partners nor there is any document produced on record to show that the cheque signed by defendant no.1 in favour of plaintiff was delivered by defendant no.2. In these circumstances, in my opinion, it would not be appropriate to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2 without trial. The defendant no.2, in my opinion, would be entitled to leave to defend the suit. The defendant no.2 is accordingly, granted leave to defend the suit. Defendant no.2 to file written statement within a period of Six weeks from today. 3. So far as defendant no.1 is concerned, the defendant no.1 has been duly served with the summons for judgment. He has chosen not to appear. No affidavit in reply has been filed. In the absence of any affidavit in terms of Order 37 of C.P.C. the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against defendant no.1. Summons for Judgment against defendant no.1 is granted. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a) as against the defendant no.1 only. ---