IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2240 OF 1996 Bank of Baroda .. Plaintiff vs. Mrs.Deepa Gopal Poddar & Anr. .. Defendants Ms.Sheela Mistry i/by Mr.Jayesh Patel for the plaintiff. None for the defendants. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 17th October 2008. : 17th October 2008. : 17th October 2008. JUDGMENT: . The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has tendered on record the original documents, affidavit of service of one Mr.R.J.Tiwari, Bailiff and clerk in the office of Sheriff, Mumbai regarding service of writ of summons to the legal representatives of the original defendant. Affidavit of service is marked "X" for identification. Affidavit of documents is also tendered on record which is marked "Y" for identification. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has produced the original documents alongwith a list. The list of documents is marked as "Z" for identification. According to the case of the 2 plaintiffs-bank, the original defendant was carrying on business as a sole proprietor. On his request, in or about October 1993, the plaintiffs had granted the bills discounting facility on adhoc basis to the original defendant. Pursuant to the said facility, the plaintiffs advanced diverse amounts to the original defendant against discounting six bills drawn by the original defendants on M/s.Quality Cut Piece Centre. The plaintiffs maintained an account of the original defendant in their books of account in the ordinary course of business. The particulars of the bills have been incorporated in the plaint. 2. When the plaintiffs presented the aforesaid bills on their respective due dates to the defendant through their bankers, the same were returned unpaid to the plaintiffs. Though the original defendant was made aware of the said fact, he did not pay the amount. Therefore, a sum of Rs.64,500/- deposited with the plaintiffs in the account of the original defendant was appropriated by the plaintiffs against one of the bills dated 13th December 1993. A notice of demand dated 22nd December 1995 was issued by the plaintiffs through their advocate to the original defendant. As the original defendant failed to pay the amount, the present suit has 3 been filed claiming recovery of a sum of Rs.02,63,221/- payable by the original defendant as per the account maintained by the plaintiffs in ordinary course of business. 3. The plaintiffs have produced a certified true copy of the extract of the account of the original defendant which has been duly certified in accordance with Bankers’ Books of Evidence Act, 1891. The plaintiffs have also produced on record the other original documents including notice of demand and postal acknowledgment thereof. Neither the original defendant nor his legal representatives have defended the suit. Considering the averments made in the plaint and considering the original documents on record and especially the extract of the account of the original defendant, the plaintiffs have established their claim. Interest under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will have to be fixed at the rate of 12% per annum. It is obvious that the liability of the defendants will be restricted to the estate of the deceased inherited by them. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: 4 (i) There will be a decree in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) with modification that the plaintiffs will be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the sum of Rs.02,63,221/- from the date of institution of the suit till payment or realisation. (ii) It is made clear that the defendants 1a and 1b will be liable to satisfy the decree only to the extent of the estate of the deceased inherited by them. (iii) The plaintiffs will be entitled to refund of court fees, if any, as per the rules. (iv) Certified copy is expedited. (A.S.Oka,J)