IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. SUIT SUIT SUIT No. 2986 OF 1989. No. 2986 OF 1989. No. 2986 OF 1989. Udai Udai Udai Mahendra Pathak. Mahendra Pathak. Mahendra Pathak. Plaintiff. Plaintiff. Plaintiff. Vs. The The The State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra And And And Anr. Anr. Anr. Defendants. Defendants. Defendants. Mr. R. D. Dave i/b. Mr. N. N. Vaishnawa & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr. B. N. Shroff, A.G.P. for the State/Defendants. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: D. G. KARNIK, J. D. G. KARNIK, J. D. G. KARNIK, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 19th January, 2007. 19th January, 2007. 19th January, 2007. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The suit was initially filed as a Summary Suit and conditional leave to the defendants to defend the suit was granted by a Single Judge. Appeal No. 537/90 alongwith other 37 Appeals filed by the defendants was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court which granted unconditional leave to the defendants to defend the suit and directed the defendants to file their written statement within the time specified in the original order of the Single Judge. Despite the order of the Division Bench dated 22nd July, 1991 the defendants have not filed their written [ 2 ] 2 ] 2 ] statement. 2. The suit is a simple suit for recovery of money. Considering the nature of the suit, I consider it appropriate to pass a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed in the prayer clause with the modification that the rate of interest would be 12% per annum instead of 21% as prayed. [D. [D. [D. G. KARNIK, J] G. KARNIK, J] G. KARNIK, J]