1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.234 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.443 OF 2008 WITH SUMMARY SUIT NO.443 OF 2008 Jeena and Company Staff Provident Fund .... Plaintiff V/s. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation .... Defendant Mr.Sanjay Udeshi i/by M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for the plaintiff. Mr.Suresh Patil i/by M/s.Utangale & Co., for the defendant. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J. DATED : 31ST MARCH, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant. 2. This summons for judgment is taken out in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the amount of the Bond issued by the defendant- corporation and the interest thereon. 3. The summons for judgment was served on the defendant's Advocate on 05-08-2008. Learned counsel for the defendant admits the receipt of the summons for judgment. The plaintiff is however, directed to 2 file affidavit of service before the decree is drawn. 4. Though summons for judgment was served on the defendant through its Advocate on 05-08-2008, the defendant has not filed any application for leave to defend, nor filed any affidavit-in-reply to summons for judgment. In the circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree under clause (a) of sub-rule 6 of Rule 3 of Order 37 of C.P.C., read with Clause (iv) of Rule 221 of Bombay High Court Original Side Rules. 5. The plaintiff is a Provident Fund Trust and the defendant is a Government Corporation. The defendant-corporation issued non- convertible bonds carrying interest @ 14.5% p.a. The plaintiff subscribed to five bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- each totalling to Rs.5,00,000/-. These bonds were issued on 31-01-2005. The xerox copies of the bonds are annexed to the plaint. According to the plaintiff, on maturity, the bonds were sent to the defendant for redemption. The defendant however, did not pay the redemption amount and nor paid the earlier interest. The suit is therefore, filed for arrears of interest and recovery of the principal amount. 6. In the absence of any application to leave to defend or affidavit-in-reply, the averments made in the plaint are deemed to be accepted. The plaintiff is therefore, entitled to a decree. 7. In view of the above, the summons for judgment is allowed. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) of 3 the plaint. ( D.G.KARNIK, J. )