1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.417 OF SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.417 OF SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.417 OF 2003 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.2413 OF SUMMARY SUIT NO.2413 OF SUMMARY SUIT NO.2413 OF 2000 Agasti Industries & anr .. Plaintiff versus Ovhal Agencies .. Defendant ... Ms.Sumedha Rao for Plaintiff. Mr.Utangale i/b Utangale & Co for Defendant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 1st February, 2005. DATED : 1st February, 2005. DATED : 1st February, 2005. P.C:- P.C:- P.C:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the defendant points out that previously the plaintiff had taken out the Summons for Judgment No.1128 of 2004 against the defendant. By an order dated 13th August, 2002 this Court has granted unconditional leave to the defendant to defend the suit. 2 2. As unconditional leave to defend the suit has been granted to the defendant no second Summons for Judgment is maintainable. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that because of the amemdment of the plaint fresh summons has been taken out. Amendment is no ground for taking out a fresh Summons for Judgment. Principle of resjudicata also applies between two stages of the same proceedings. Taking out a second Summons for Judgment is an abuse of the process of the Court. 3. Hence, Summons for Judgment is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs.500/-. D.G.KARNIK, J D.G.KARNIK, J D.G.KARNIK, J