1 Ss1543-09 ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.1543 OF 2009 Nitesh H. Jain .. Plaintiff Vs. Sandip Digamber Kambli .. Defendant Ms.Neeta Solanki i/b M/s.Kiran Jain and Co. for the plaintiff CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : December 3, 2010 P.C. : 1. The plaintiff is a money lender. The money lending license has been issued in his favour which is valid and subsisting. 2. The defendants approached him for a friendly loan and the defendants in consideration of a sum of Rs.65,000/- executed a demand promissory note which is annexed at Annexure A. The demand promissory note was not honoured and neither any part of the principal nor interest has been paid. Demand notice has been issued which has been duly received but there is no reply. 2 Ss1543-09 3. From the perusal of the averments in the plaint, I am satisfied that the plaintiff is a money lender withing the meaning of the said term under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1958 and even the ambit and scope of the rules and regulations framed thereunder, in such circumstances, and the suit being based on the demand promissory note order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure has been invoked by the plaintiff. Demand promissory note is dt.16.04.09 and therefore, claim of the plaintiff is within limitation. Defendants resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and therefore, the court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 4. In the light of the above and finding that there is no denial of the liability nor any dispute raised by filing Vakalatnama and seeking leave to defend, the suit is decreed as prayed. The original documents are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Affidavit proving service is marked as 'X-1'. Refund of court fee as per rules. Advocates cost will be computed as per rules. ( S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. )