1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.357 OF 1984 The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay .. Plaintiff Versus Transocean Shipping Agency Pvt.Ltd. .. Defendant Mr.U.J.Makhija with P.Khandhar i/b. M/s.Mulla & Mulla for plaintiff CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 3rd February 2009 P.C. . This suit is filed to recover port trust charges. Defendant is sued as owner of the consignment which reached the Bombay Port Trust and partly cleared on behalf of the defendants by their clearing agents. The details of the consignment are set out in paras 2 and 3 of the plaint. The balance consignment was not cleared and, therefore, notices for sale were addressed 2 to the defendants which are duly served. The defendants did not clear the balance cargo. It was, therefore, put up for sale in lots and after adjusting the sale proceeds, the amount due as Port Trust Charges is sought to be recovered from the defendants by filing the suit. There are demand notices sent which have also been duly received but there is no reply. 2. It is stated in the plaint that the Port Trust is entitled to recover from the defendants the principal sum of Rs.62,13,709.83 along with interest. The consignments were sold and, thereafter, the amount was crystalised. It is stated in para 16 that the same was done on 16th February 1981 and the present suit is filed on 15th February 1984. The consignment was unloaded in Mumbai and all defendants are in Mumbai. 3. These plaint averments are confirmed by the witness of the plaintiffs who has deposed on 3 the basis of the records on oath. His affidavit of evidence is tendered. The same is duly signed by the witness Mr.I.S.Swamy. He is present in court. He confirms his signature and the contents of the affidavit. He also confirms the contents of the documents and states that they are true and correct. He has identified the signatures on these documents as well. The affidavit is, therefore, taken on record and read in evidence. 4. The documents which are in a compilation are the originals/ copies of the documents relied upon in the plaint. The contents having been proved, there is no impediment in taking them on record and marking them as exhibits. The documents are, therefore, marked as Exh.P Colly. 5. The defendants have not bothered to file their appearance after the writ of summons was duly served. The affidavit proving service of 4 writ of summons has already been filed. There is V.P. filed on behalf of the defendants but no written statement has been filed. Neither the defendants nor their Advocate are present to cross examine the witness of the plaintiffs on the case set out in the plaint. In such circumstances, in law, the claim is proved by the plaintiffs. 6. I am satisfied that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and the claim is not barred by limitation at all. Resultantly, the suit is decreed as prayed. Advocate’s cost as per rules. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)