1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.2184 OF 2004 Arvind Chandulal Patel .. Plaintiff Versus Jagadamba Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. .. Defendant Plaintiff in person CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 3rd April 2008 P.C. . The plaintiff appears in person and prays for decree against the defendant Sakhar Karkhana. 2. Plaintiff states that he carries on business of trading in Electrical items, hardware, etc. in the name and style set out in para 2 of the plaint. At the request of defendant and pursuant to the order placed he 2 sold and supplied various materials during accounting years 1995-96 and 1996-97. He has invited my attention to a letter which is addressed by the Sakhar Karkhana on 11th July 1997 confirming the balance outstanding of Rs.43,69,851/-. It was stated in the said letter that subject to reconciliation and Government audit, the amount would be paid. There is further confirmation on 7th June 2002. 3. It is in such circumstances and that there being no dispute with regard to the quantity and quality of the goods so also part payments made by cheques, which came to be dishonoured, that the plaintiff contends that bar of limitation is saved. The averments to that effect so also of jurisdiction in the plaint remained uncontroverted. 4. Defendants are served with the plaint and the annexures thereto. Affidavit proving service 3 has been filed. Original documents are also filed along with the list. The balance outstanding has been confirmed as is clear from a perusal of the original documents which include annexures to the plaint. 5. I am satisfied from the averments in the plaint that the suit is maintainable as a summary suit. All requirements of Order XXXVII of C.P.C. are complied with. The documents in question, including the balance confirmation which have been accepted as correct and duly signed by the authorised signatory of the defendant Karkhana so also the original purchase order clearly denote that there is acknowledgement of liability. 6. It is in these circumstances and that the suit claim being within the jurisdiction of this Court and maintainable as well, that I am proceeding to pass a decree in the suit. The suit claim is also within limitation as is clear 4 from para 9 of the plaint. There is no defence to the liability. None has appeared to dispute the claim of the plaintiff nor any affidavit is filed in reply. In such circumstances, the suit stands decreed as prayed. Advocates cost and refund as per rules. Drawn up decree dispensed with. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)