IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2003 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.42 OF 2001 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 5706 OF 1999 Premier Raw Products & Ors. ....Appellants (Orig.Defendants) V/s. Organic Coating Ltd ......Respondents (Orig.Plaintiffs.) ======== Mr.S.S.Pakale, Advocate for appellants. Mr.P.H.Chande with Mr.Hiten Dedhia, Advocate for respondents. CORAM: J.N.PATEL, & SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATED: 21ST JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. The only question that arises for consideration in this Appeal before us, is whether the impugned order allowing the Summons for Judgment for want of an affidavit seeking leave to defend the Summary Suit is erroneous or illegal. 3. The appellants are original defendants in Summary Suit No. 5706 of 1999. The respondent is the original plaintiff. Apellant no.2 is the original defendant no.2. He was served with Summons for Judgment on 18th January, 2001. Order 37 CPC requires that the defendant who has been served with the Summons for Judgment must file his affidavit disclosing the grounds on which he will be entitled to leave to defend the Suit within a period of 10 days of the service of Summons for Judgment. Though more than a year had passed since the date of service of Summons for Judgment, appellant no.2 neither filed an affidavit seeking leave nor made an application for extension of time to file the affidavit. Therefore, the respondent under Order 37 Rule 3 sub-rule 6 CPC became entitled to a judgment forthwith. Consequently, by the impugned order dated 18th November 2002, the Summons for Judgment was made absolute and decree passed against appellant no.2. There can be no error or illegality in such order. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. J.N.PATEL, J SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J