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.160 OF 2008 SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.160 OF 2008 SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.160 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.3456 OF 2002. SUMMARY SUIT NO.3456 OF 2002. SUMMARY SUIT NO.3456 OF 2002. Dena Bank ..Plaintiff versus Siddhant Advertising & Ors. ..Defendant Mr.P.J.Pandit i/b. B.M.Gupta & Associates for the Plaintiff None for the Defendant CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 21st Oct., 2008. DATED : 21st Oct., 2008. DATED : 21st Oct., 2008. P.C. 1. Affidavit in reply to the Summons for Judgment is filed by defendant No.2 and for defendant Nos.4 to 7. Defendant No.2 is partner of defendant No.1. The defendant Nos.4 to 7 are the heirs of the original guarantor. Heard learned Advocate for the plaintiff. Advocate for the defendant is absent. The document dated 16.7.1999 signed by the partner of defendant No.2 acknowledges the liability towards the bank. Suit is filed on 10.7.2002. Hence, prima facie it is within the period of limitation. The letter dated 6.11.2000 is addressed by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff’s advocate admitting the liability and -2- sharing with the liability would be squared off and that the firm is facing financial difficulties. 2. So far as the defendant Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, the documents, two in number discussed above indicate that they are liable to pay to plaintiff. In view of this they will be put to terms contesting the suit. Keeping in view the suit claim the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to deposit in this Court sum of Rs.6,00,000/_ (Rupees Six Lakhs Only). Deposit of amount as aforesaid would be condition precedent to contest the suit. 3. So far as defendant Nos.4 to 7 are concerned, they are heirs of the original guarantors and prior to filing of the suit the said guarantor is reported to be dead and it is under this circumstances they are impleaded as party defendants. In my view merely because defendant Nos.4 to 7 happen to be the heirs of the guarantors, that cannot be a factor to call upon them to deposit monies. In my view, they will be entitled for the lieu to defend. Hence the Order. ORDER -3- 1. Upon defendant Nos.1 to 3 or any of them depositing the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in this Court on or before 5.12.2008, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are permitted to contest the suit. Unconditional leave is granted to defendant Nos.4 to 7 to contest the suit. If any of the defendant out of defendant Nos.1 to 3 wants to file the written statement, shall do so after complying with the order of depositing the amount, and file the same in this Court directly on 15.12.2008. So far as defendant Nos. 4 to 7 are concerned, if they wish to file written statement they should file the same directly in the Court on 15.12.2008. 2. Suit adjourned to 15.12.2008 for written statement. 3. Summons for Judgement disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)