1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Amk NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1166 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 2840 OF 2008 M/s. Madhoram Munilal (HUF) .. Plaintiff Vs. M/s. Bina Silk Mills & Ors. .. Defendants Ms. Krupa Kashid i/b S. K. Jain the Plaintiff. Mr. Harish Pandya i/b Swati Sawant for Deft Nos.1, 2 & 4. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 30th April, 2010. P.C. 1. The suit is filed on a receipt dated 31.01.1975. The first confirmation of the receipt is shown to be in 2004. The confirmation does not show any relationship with the receipt. The receipt is for Rs.25,000/-. The confirmation showing the balance of liability is for Rs.795690/-. 2. The question of limitation would have to be considered aside from the proof of the receipt itself. 3. Further the plaintiff is the Karta of HUF. The receipt is by a firm in Ahmedabad. The confirmation is by the same firm in Amritsar. 4. On these facts, the summary suit is filed. It is sought to be served by registered post upon Defendant Nos. 2, 3 & 4. It is shown to be accepted by one person on behalf of 3 Defendants. He has signed on behalf of Defendant No.1 firm. It is not know who is the person who signed the 2 acknowledgment showing the service of the writ of summons except that it is made under the rubber stamp of Defendant No.1. However it is not at the address of the firm. Though prima facie the receipt of summons is shown the authority of the person who received is not clear. 5. Consequently the defendants have made out a case for setting aside the ex-parte decree on the ground of service of summons as well as on merits of the plaintiff’s claim. Consequently the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) & (b). The plaintiff shall take out the Summons for Judgment. (R. S. DALVI, J.)