1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2438 OF 2008 M/s. Akshata Merchatile Pvt.Ltd.........Plaintiffs versus Sudhir Patilk, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Yogit Enterprises ........Defendants. Ms. Shyamli Hajela i/b.M.M.Legal Asso. adv. for the Plaintiffs None for the Defendants CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 17th APRIL, 2009. P.C.: 1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff carries on business of supply of steel goods and material. Pursuant to an order placed by the defendant with the plaintiff, the plaintiff supplied material worth Rs. 12,89,434/- in between April 2006 and August 2006. The plaintiff claims to have procured the material from the sister concern and had raised invoice in the name of the defendant from time to time. As per the invoice raised by the plaintiff on the defendant, the defendant had made part payment. However the balance amount of Rs.3,42,903 remained to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. On a demand made by the plaintiff, vide letter dated 13-9-2006 the defendant issued a cheque after 2 acknowledging his liability to pay the balance amount and a cheque was issued in the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- dated 2-11-2006. The cheque was presented for encashment, however on the ground that it exceeds the arrangement, the cheque came to be dishonoured. The plaintiff has placed on record the dishonoured cheque so also the memorandum issued by the bank. By the letter dated 18-11-2006 the plaintiff called upon the defendant to pay the amount of the dishonoured cheque. On receipt of the letter the defendant did pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs. However, the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has not been paid. Hence the present suit has been filed after issuing notice through advocate. The plaintiff is claiming interest at the rate of 18% per annum as the transaction in question is a commercial transaction. 2. The defendant has not entered appearance inspite of the service of summons on him. Having failed to enter appearance, the situation would be regulated by Order 37 Rule 2 (3) of CPC which lays down that the defendant shall not defend the suit unless he enters appearance and in default of his entering appearance, the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. In the present case the defendant has failed to enter the appearance. Hence the averments made in the plaint shall be deemed to have been admitted by the defendant, and the plaintiff would be entitled for a decree for the amount claimed. 3. The plaintiff has placed on record the documnts which 3 are collectively marked as `X'. The documents includes the dishonoured cheque and the notices issued by the plaintiff claiming the amount outstanding. The reply, to the notice issued by the plaintiff, sent by the defendant clearly reveals that the defendant has admitted the delay in payment of the amount due, which is filed at Exh.C dated 29-9-2006. In that view of the matter the suit deserves to be decreed. 4. The suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount of Rs.2,13,237/- stands decreed. The defendant shall pay the amount of Rs.2,13,237/- to the plaintiff together with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until realisation. The defendant shall also pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall beentitled to refund of the court fees according to rules. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)