vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.750 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.750 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.750 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.333 OF 1989 M/s.Dani Wooltex Corporation ... Appellant (org. def. No.10) V/s. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay & Anr. ... Respondents Ms.Sharmila Deshmukh for Appellant Mr.U.J. Makhija a/w Sunil Chavan i/b M.V. Kini for Respondents CORAM: S.B. MHASE & S.B. MHASE & S.B. MHASE & SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: JULY 14, 2008 JULY 14, 2008 JULY 14, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard. The decree passed in Suit No.333 of 1989 dated 3.9.2007 is under challenge. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of the wharfage and demurrage which the appellant has disputed. Written statement in this matter was not filed and, therefore, the suit has been disposed of under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, while exercising powers under Order 8 Rule 10, the Court has directed the respondents to file an affidavit. Thereafter on the basis of the affidavit the suit has been disposed of. The plaint contains the averments that the respondents were the importers and are the owners/consignees of the said consignment (consignment of 52 bales said to contain : 2 : woollen rags which was manifest No.1059 dated 3.5.2005 of the vessel m.v. Lakatoi Express). 2. Within the meaning of the Major Port Trusts Act, Defendant No.2 was bailor of the said consignment, having discharged the same into the custody of the plaintiff. As such the importers/owners/consignees and bailor respectively the Defendants were bound and liable to take delivery of and clear the said consignment within 7 days from the date of landing thereof. No doubt in para 66, it is stated by the plaintiff that his status has been denied by the defendants by the letters referred in in their reply. The grievance of the appellant is that the ownership of the goods has not been proved and, therefore, the decree passed by the learned Single Judge is bad and illegal. This submission is incorrect. The plaintiffs have filed an affidavit and they have contended and repeated therein the averments which are set out above and in view of the affidavit of the plaintiffs, the status of the defendants namely that they are the owners/consignees and/or importers has been proved. In the circumstances since the defendants did not contest the suit which was decided ex parte for not filing the written statement, there is no way to disbelieve the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs, the respondents herein. We find that the affidavit has been properly filed in the Court and has : 3 : rightly been relied upon. There is no substance in the appeal and the appeal is summarily rejected. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the amount deposited by the appellant be paid to the Respondent No.1. 3. In view of the rejection of the appeal, Notice of Motion No.4463 of 2007 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)