1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 547 OF 2009 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 392 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3035 OF 2006 Vasant Upendra Kamath .. Appellant Vs. Lawrence Crasta ..Respondent Ms. Kanchan S. Chindarkar for appellant. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Ms. P.L. Bachani i/by I.R. Joshi & Co. for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. January 05, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Ms. Kanchan Chindarkar the learned counsel for the appellant, who is the original plaintiff in Summary Suit No. 3035 of 2006. 2 2. In the said suit, Chamber Summons No. 392 of 2007 was taken out by the defendant praying for directions against the plaintiff to furnish further and better particulars of the loan transactions by annexing schedule to the Chamber Summons. The details sought were as under:- (a) As to when i.e. on what different dates such alleged loans were advanced. (b) What were the different amounts advanced on different dates. (c) Whether such advances were in cash and/or in cheques. (d) If the said advances were in cheques the inspection of counter foils and bank statements be given. (e) If the alleged loans were in cash the plaintiff must produce and give inspection of acknowledgment receipts, if any, duly signed by the Defendant. 3. The learned Single Judge by the order dated 12th August, 2008 made the Chamber Summons absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as under:- (a) That the plaintiff be ordered and directed to furnish to the 3 Defendant further and better particulars of the vague statement in the Plaint as per the Schedule hereto annexed. 4. We do not find any reason to cause interference in the said order as in our opinion it does not suffer from any errors and, therefore, the appeal must fail at the threshold. 5. The appeal is hereby dismissed in limine. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)