1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 290 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.897 OF 1988 Premier Transport Corporation ..Appellant Vs. M.E.Engineers Combine Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr.S.V.Vora for Appellant Mr.S.K.Sawant for Respondent No.1 .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Vora, the learned counsel for the appellant. Mr.S.K.Sawant appears for Respondent No.1. 2. Suit No. 897 of 1988 was filed by the present Respondents against the appellant for the following reliefs: “The Defendants be ordered and decreed to pay to the 2 nd Plaintiff or in the alternative, to the 1st Plaintiff sum of Rs.95,000/- and interest 2 thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the judgment and further interest at 6% per annum on Rs.95,000/- from judgment until the realization and costs ”. 3. The Defendant on service, engaged an advocate but did not file written statement and when the suit was listed before the learned trial Judge on 29th June, 2006, none was present for the Defendant and Defendant had not filed any written statement. The suit was pending for almost 18 years but without any written statement being filed so as to oppose the same. The learned trial Judge therefore, noted that the suit is simple money suit and in the absence of any written statement, the averments were deemed to be admitted and therefore, the suit was decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 of C.P.C. in terms of the relief as reproduced herein above. 4. The said order dated 29th June, 2006 is under challenge in this appeal. Mr. Vora submitted that the learned advocate engaged by the Defendant, died on 3rd September, 2002 i.e. during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the Defendant could not file its written statement. This sole explanation cannot be accepted to entertain this appeal. Even on 3rd September, 2002 the suit was pending for almost for 14 years and even after the demise of the learned advocate engaged by the Defendant, when the suit came up before the trial 3 Judge on 29th June, 2006 i.e. after about four years, no steps were taken to file the written statement so as to oppose the relief as prayed for. In our opinion therefore, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 of C.P.C. and there is no ground made out to cause interference in this intra court appeal in the said order. 5. Hence, this appeal fails at the threshold and same is dismissed in limine. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [ B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. ]