1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 1043 OF 2005 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.839 OF 2004 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2251 OF 2004 M/s.Rasiklal Kantilal & Co. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.R.J.Tubes and Rods Pvt.Ltd. ... Respondent. K.H.Helai with Ms.Priya Aggarwal i/b. M/s.Helai & Co. for the appellant. Birendra Saraf with Ms.Neeta Solanki i/b. Kiran Jain & Co. for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA & SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATED : 18th August 2009. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17th October, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge in Summons for Judgment No.839/2004 in Summary Suit No.2251/2004. We were taken through the impugned order whereby and whereunder the appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.7 lakh 2 within four weeks from the date of the order, failing which, plaintiff was held to be entitled for the decree. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the three contentions which were already dealt with by the learned single Judge as such it is not necessary to reproduce the same since we concur with the finding recorded therein by the learned single Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant by way of additional submission submits that there was running account between the parties and the appellant itself has to recover an amount of Rs.32,36,064.20 from the plaintiff. He further submits that this defence was also raised in the counter affidavit filed before the learned single, however, there is no reference to the said contention in the impugned order showing consideration thereof. 5. In reply, Mr.Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the aforesaid contention was never raised by the appellant before learned single Judge. According to him, had it been raised by the appellant and not dealt with by learned single Judge, then there would have been a complaint made in the appeal memo. No such complaint is to be found in the appeal. He further submits that it was open for the appellant to move learned single Judge with the complaint, if any, to get the order corrected or to invite findings on the left out contentions. He submits that none of these modes were utilised by the appellant as such appeal needs to be rejected. 3 6. We concur with the submissions made by Mr.Saraf for the respondent. In the above view of the matter, considering the reasoned order passed by learned single Judge with which we concur, no interference is called for. By no imagination, the impugned order can be said to be perverse order. In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)