1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO. 279 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1630 OF 2008 WITH SUMMARY SUIT NO.1630 OF 2008 M/s.Sevantilal & Sons .. Plaintiff versus M/s.DCI Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. .. Defendant ... Mr.N.R. Patel for the plaintiff. Mr.Parag Shelke for the defendant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 1st April 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. This Summons for Judgement is taken out in a suit for recovery of money for the value of the goods sold and delivered to the defendant. 3. No application for leave to defend nor any affidavit in reply to the Summons for Judgement has been filed by the defendant. Counsel for the defendant submits that after receipt of the Summons for Judgement, he has telephonically contacted the defendant company but the defendant has not given any instructions for drafting of the affidavit in reply. Hence, affidavit in reply has not been filed. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that despite of service of summons as bar back on 12th September 2008, no application for leave to defend nor affidavit in reply has been filed. In the absence of any affidavit in reply, averments made in the plaint/ Summons for Judgement have been admitted. 5. Counsel for the plaintiff today filed on record original documents and affidavit of Mr.Sachin Deshpande. The documents inter alia contain original order received by the plaintiff on fax, office copies of the plaintiffs invoice, transporters receipt/ delivery challan and original cheques issued by the defendant from time to time towards part payment. 3 6. In the absence of any application for leave to defend, plaintiff is entitled to a decree under Order 37 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 221 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. Hence, Summons for Judgement is allowed and plaintiffs suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the plaint. (D.G. KARNIK, J)