1 sj-1-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 1 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1879 OF 2002. Hardas R. Pardasani. ..Plaintiff. vs. Gitsol Finanz N Leaz Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ..Defendants. .... Mr. J.s. Chandanani, for Plaintiff. Mr. Prashant Patil, i/b. C.P. Associate, for Defendants. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. : The above Summons for Judgment is taken out by the Plaintiff for the following relief :- “that the Judgment be entered for Plaintiff in this Suit against the Defendants for Rs. 3,79,500/- together with future interest on principal amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- @ 18% from the date of the Suit till payment/realisation and costs as set out in the Plaint.” 2. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 Company through its Director, the Defendant No.2, for valuable consideration executed a Bill of Exchange for Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of the Plaintiff. 3. The Defendant No.2 in his personal capacity accepted the said Bill of Exchange and handed over the same to the Plaintiff. The original bill of exchange is produced before this Court. 2 sj-1-10 4. According to the Plaintiff, when the said bill of exchange was presented for payment to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, they did not honour the same, but requested for time due to financial crisis in the market. The Plaintiff has submitted that a sum of Rs. 3,79,500/- was due and payable on the date of filing of the Suit as per the particulars of claim annexed at Exhibit ‘B’ to the Plaint. It is submitted that the Plaintiff is entitled to further interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the date of filing of the Suit till payment and/or realisation. Though the Suit is filed in the year 2002, since the Defendants had not given their correct address, the Writ of Summons could not be served on the Defendants upto mid 2009. The Advocate for the Defendants filed their Vakalatnama in July/ August 2009. The present Summons for Judgment was therefore taken out in December 2009 i.e. within a period of six months from the date of filing of the appearance by the Advocate for the Defendants. 5. The Defendant No.2 has filed his Affidavit-in-Reply to the Summons for Judgment wherein he alleged that the said Bill of Exchange was never executed by him. Even at the time of arguments, it was submitted that the Bill of Exchange is a fabricated document and was never executed by the Defendant No.2 for himself and/or on behalf of the Defendant No.1. However the learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff pointed out to this Court that the signature of the Defendant No.2 on the said Bill of Exchange when compared with his signature on the Vakalatnama shows that the two signatures are absolutely identical and that a false statement is made on oath by the Defendant No.2 that he has not executed the said Bill of Exchange. After comparing the signatures of the Defendant No.2 on the said Bill of Exchange and on the Vakalatnama of his Advocate, 3 sj-1-10 this Court told the Advocate for the Defendant No.2 that his client should be made aware of the consequences of making a false statement on oath. Thereafter, the Defendant No.2 informed the Court that the said Bill of Exchange was executed by him and that earlier he has made a false statement that the same is not executed by him. The Defendant No.2 also tendered an unconditional apology for the same by filing his Affidavit dated 21st September 2011. It was then contended on behalf of the Defendant No.2 that he had not received the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the Plaintiff. To this, the learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff pointed out from the Plaintiff’s Affidavit dated 21st September 2011 that the Plaintiff has shown in his Income Tax Returns as well his balance sheet for the year 1999-2000 that an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. The learned Advocate appearing for the Defendants and the Defendant No.2 after going through the documents contended that the Defendant No.2 does not have any money to make payment to the Plaintiff. However, the Advocate for the Defendants submitted that there is delay on the part of the Plaintiff in taking out the Summons for Judgment. To this, the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff pointed out that despite several attempts made by the Plaintiff to serve the Writ of Summons on the Defendants, the packet containing the Writ of Summons was returned back on number of occasions and that the Plaintiff could serve the Writ of Summons on the Defendant No.2 only in June 2009. The appearance on behalf of the Defendants was filed by the Advocate in July 2009 and the Summons for Judgment was filed in December 2009, i.e. within a period of six months from the date of service of Writ of Summons. 6. In view of the above, the Defendants have no defense 4 sj-1-10 whatsoever to the above claim of the Plaintiff. The Summons for Judgment is therefore allowed as prayed. The Summons for Judgment as well as the Summary Suit are accordingly disposed of. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]