IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 365 OF 1999 NO. 365 OF 1999 NO. 365 OF 1999 Citi Bank N.A........ Plaintiffs versus Mehul R. Shah........ Defendant. Ms. Kavita Anchan i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for the Plaintiffs. None for the defendant. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 11TH JUNE, 2008. 11TH JUNE, 2008. 11TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This suit has been filed by the City Bank for recovery of the dues under credit card issued and used by the defendant. The suit is filed under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code as a summary suit. By an order dated 29-10-2001 this court granted conditional leave to defend the suit. The condition imposed was that the defendant shall deposit a sum of Rs.61,452.25 in this court within four weeks from the date of the order. The amount directed to be deposited by defendant as a condition for grant of leave to defend the suit denote the amount of entire claim in the present suit. The defendant did not comply with the condition subject to which leave to defend was granted. The Prothonotary and Senior Master has issued a certificate about non-compliance of the condition by defendant. In this view of the matter on account of non deposit of the amount within the stipulated time frame, has resulted in frustrating the right of the defendant to contest the suit. 2. According to the Plaintiff, it is a body corporate constituted under the law prevailing by the United States of America having its registered office at New York. It carries on business at various places and destinations including Bombay. The Plaintiff being a Consumer Bank, granted credit card facility to the defendant at his request. The defendant after availing of the credit card bearing no. 5425 5693 4118 7001 used the same for purchase of various consumer products from retailed outlets. According to the card membership agreement, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount from the defendant which Plaintiff pays to the retail outlets where from the defendant has made the purchases. It has been the practice as agreed between the parties that the Plaintiff bank would make available a monthly statement of account to the defendant and if any discrepancy is noticed, the defendant is obliged to bring it to the notice of the Plaintiff within 30 days, failing which the defendant is estopped from disputing the correctness of the account. In the present case, the defendant at no point of time disputed the amount due and payable by him to the Plaintiff bank. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that the defendant did issue some cheques in favour of the Plaintiff bank but the same came to be dis-honoured. Hence after issuing notice to the defendant, through advocate, making a demand for the amount due and outstanding in the statement of account as on 15-7-1998, the present suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 61,452.25 has been filed. The defendant did not object to the correctness of any of the monthly statements. The defendant also chose not to reply the advocate’s notice sent by the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff the defendant has also signed the charge sheets and the amount claimed in the suit denote and represent the value of the goods purchased by the defendant from the retail outlets on the basis of the credit card issued by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff in its turn has paid the amount recoverable from the defendant to the various retained outlets/shops. According to the statement dated 16-7-1998 the amount of Rs. 61,452.25 is due and recoverable by the Plaintiff. 2. The Plaintiff has placed on record the bank statement,and advocate’s notice and the application made by the defendant for grant of credit card, with a view to substantiate the suit claim. As stated hereinabove, the defendant has lost the right to defend the suit on account of non-compliance of the order passed by this court dated 29-10-2001 by failing to deposit the amount within the time prescribed. The leave to defend was granted conditionally and as the condition of deposit of the amount was not satisfied, the defendant has lost the right to defend the suit. In the result the Plaintiff’s suit deserves to be decreed. I thus pass the following order. 3. The defendant is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 61,452.25 to the Plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 16-7-1998 until realisation of the amount in full. The suit is decreed with costs and the defendant is directed to pay the costs. Decree be drawn up accordingly. (A.P. DESHPANDE,J.)