:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 2316 OF NO. 2316 OF NO. 2316 OF 1984 1984 1984 Steel Authority of India Ltd. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Best Trunk Industries. ... Defendants. Mr. Sandeep Sreekumar i/b. Mulla & Mulla for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. Mr. D.P. Amre, Sr. Office Superintendent (vigilance) present in person. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 24TH 24TH 24TH FEBRUARY 2009. FEBRUARY 2009. FEBRUARY 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This matter is placed for ex-parte decree at the instance of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s Advocate states that Mr. Deepak P. Amre, who is working as Senior Office Superintendent (Vigilance) with the Plaintiffs is the witness whom the Plaintiffs desire to examine as their only witness. It is stated by the Plaintiffs that at the relevant time, Mr. Amre was assisting Mr. V. Satyanarayan, Junior Manager (Finance), at Mumbai. The relevant period 1981 to 1985. Mr. Amre is personally aware of the suit transaction . 2. The affidavit of Mr. Deepak P. Amre affirmed on 19th January 2009, is tendered by the Plaintiffs’ Advocate. :2: 3. The witness is present in Court. He confirms his signature below para 14 of the affidavit in evidence. The witness states that he has gone through the affidavit. The statements therein are true and correct. He states that the Plaintiffs are relying upon 9 documents each one of which has been referred to in the affidavit in evidence. He states that the contents of these documents are true and correct. 4. The affidavit in chief of Mr. Deepak Amre is taken on record and marked ‘X’. 5. The affidavit of documents annexes a compilation of 9 documents. The compilation is also taken on record and marked X-1 collectively. 6. The Defendants are duly served but have not filed any Written Statement. They have not remained present to cross examine the Plaintiffs’ witness either. 7. The Plaintiffs’ witness has confirmed the averments and allegations in the plaint. He states that he was working in the Bombay Office at the relevant time. The transaction was concluded in his presence. He has produced the office copy of the invoice and debt note. He has confirmed the receipt of a letter dated 3rd September 1982 from the Defendant. He also confirms the statements :3: made in the reply of the Plaintiffs dated 2nd November 1982 and the signature below this letter/reply. He also confirms the contents and the signature of the letter dated 18th June 1983. He has thus confirmed the statements in the plaint and the contents of the documents. 8. In such circumstances and when there is no defence to the claim raised not denial of the liability, the plaint averments can be accepted as true and correct. More so, there is no cross examination of the witness in so far as the version of the Plaintiffs. 9. In the result, the Suit is decreed as prayed. Advocates costs to be computed as per Rules. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)