1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1345 OF 2009 Otarmal Kantilal & Co. ...Plaintiff. Vs. Ramesh B. Bobade & Anr.. ...Defendants. ---- Mr. Tushar Goradia, for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. --- CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 20th NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. The writ of summons is duly served on the defendants. The affidavit proving service is taken on record, and marked `X’ for identification. There is no vakalatnama filed on behalf of the defendants nor defendants have taken any steps to defend the suit within the specified period as per rules. The original documents are taken on record, and marked `X-1’ for identification. 2. The suit claim is based on the dishonoured bill of exchange. It was drawn on 5.10.2007 and presented for payment on due date. There is no dispute that the bill of exchange was accepted by defendant no.2 and on presentation it was dishonoured by non-payment. There is no reply to the demand notice. The plaintiff’s claim in the suit is within limitation, it is maintainable under order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and this court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. 2 3. In these circumstances, the suit is decreed as prayed. Advocate’s cost to be computed as per rules. 4. Refund of court fees as per rules. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)