1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 890 OF 2004 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3023 OF 2004 M/s. R.P. Sanghvi & Co. .. Plaintiffs. vs. Suresh Shamrao Mahadik. .. Defendant. Ms. Neeta Solanki i/by Kiran Jain & Co. for plaintiffs. None for defendant. CORAM : S.U. KAMDAR, J. DATE : 10TH OCTOBER, 2005. P.C. . The suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,87,686/- on a demand promissory note for Rs. 1,75,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 21% per annum which comes to Rs. 12,686/-. The defendants are served. The defendant has filed Vakalatnama. The same is under objection. However, when the matter appeared on the last occasion on 4.10.2005, I directed the plaintiff to give notice to the advocate for the defendant. The said notice is given. Affidavit of service dated 28,3,2005 is 2 taken on record. In spite service of the notice, none appears for the defendant. The plaintiffs have tendered the compilation of documents which is taken on record and marked P-1 collectively. In that view of the matter, there shall be decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant for the sum of Rs. 1,87,686/- with further interest on the principal amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- at the rate of 12% simple interest per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. Summons for judgment is made absolute accordingly. Both the suit as well as the summons for judgment stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.