: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 ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.695 OF 2007 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.449 OF 2005 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1273 OF 2005 Shah Hansraj Vajpar and Sons and ors. ....Appellants. Vs. Ajay Navinchandra Gogri. ....Respondent. Kamal Khata along with Mr.H.V.Chande for the Appellant. Mr.P.M.Shah for the Respondent. CORAM :SRI.R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & SRI.R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 3rd April,2008. PC : 1. Heard. 2. The appellants challenge the order dated 21.8.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Summons for Judgment No.449 of 2005 in Summary Suit No.1273 of 2005. There was no dispute raised by the appellants that the plaintiff had advanced sum of Rs.4,22,000/- to the appellants. The record apparently discloses failure of repayment and further the periodical confirmation of the balance amount due to the plaintiff by the defendants. Nothing was placed before the learned Single Judge or even before us regarding the actual clearance of all the dues to the respondent-plaintiff by the defendants or even any justification for non payment. The only :2: contention sought to be raised before the learned Single Judge in relation to the confirmation of the balance amount was that the same was done by the appellants at the instance of his Advocate only to help the plaintiff-respondent on account of some income tax purpose. In this regard, apart from the affidavit of the Advocate on behalf of the appellants, no other document or any other material in support of such claim has ever been placed on record. Once it is admitted by the appellants that certain amount was advanced to the appellants by the respondent, accrual of interest thereon and balance amount was duly confirmed by the appellants periodically and within the period of limitation, no fault can be found in the impugned order allowing the claim of the respondent bank and decreeing the suit. All the contentions sought to be raised on behalf of the appellants have been duly considered by the learned Single Judge and there is no room for interference in the impugned order. The appeal is therefore, liable to be summarily dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.)