1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.1523 OF 2009 Bank of Maharashtra .. Plaintiff Versus Jitin Vijay Sahare and Ors. .. Defendants Mr.Sachin Joshi for plaintiff CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : December 18, 2009. P.C.: 1] This suit is filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of a written contract evidenced by the documents referred to and annexed to the plaint. First defendant approached the plaintiff and availed of the credit/ loan facilities. Second defendant is a guarantor who has executed the suit guarantee. There is a demand promisory note executed in favour of the bank by the first defendant. There is a guarantee bond executed by defendant No.2 and there is an undertaking of defendant No.1. Thus, in addition to a written contract evidenced by the Agreement, the application for loan and 2 agreement, the suit is filed on the basis of a demand promisory note and deed of guarantee so also the undertaking admitting the liability. 2] From a reading of paras 10, 11 and 12 of the plaint, I am satisfied that the claim is within limitation, that the suit is maintainable as a summary suit and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. 3] Accordingly and when the defendant has failed to appear and deny and/or controvert the liability, original documents tendered are taken on record and marked as X for identification. The defendant has not appeared, though duly served with writ of summons. Affidavit proving service is also taken on record and marked X-1 for identification. There will be a decree in terms of the prayers in the suit. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Advocates cost be computed as per rules. Refund, if permissible, as per rules. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)