1 mss SS1174 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1174 OF 2009 BHUPESH NIHALCHAND JAIN .. PLAINTIFF Vs. RAMESHCHAND KAPOORCHAND PALRECHA .. DEFENDANT Mr. Ramesh Jain for the plaintiff CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 5/12/2011 P.C. Mr. Jain appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/s states that the plaintiff is not a money lender. On account of his relationship with the defendant he lent and advanced Rs.1,72,000/- in cash and the defendant executed a writing Annexure “A” to the plaint, acknowledging his liability and promising and assuring that the sum lent as an advance will be duly repaid by 15th of July, 2008. 2 mss SS1174 2. The defendant failed to abide by this undertaking and acknowledgment of his liability and, therefore, on 27th December, 2008 a legal notice was sent which was duly received by the defendant but he failed to comply with the requisition contained therein. 3. In these circumstances, the present suit was filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the writ of summons was duly served. The bailiff in the office of Sheriff of Mumbai has filed an affidavit along with the original writ of summons and the written acknowledgment by the defendant which demonstrates that the writ of summons is duly served. Even the original documents are filed. 4. From a perusal of the plaint and the original documents, I am satisfied that the suit is maintainable as a summary suit on the basis of the acknowledgment of liability and the admission to pay the sum claimed coupled with the assurance that it would be paid by the end of July, 2008. The defendant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The suit is filed within the period of limitation specified by law. There is no legal bar to the maintainability of the suit. In such circumstances writ of summons is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. The original documents are marked “X-1 collectively”. 5. Writ of summons is duly served. There is no vakalatnama filed nor is 3 mss SS1174 there any dispute raised with regard to the claim. 6. The suit is decreed as prayed. However, the suit claim shall not carry any interest as there is no agreement or any statutory provision brought to my notice which would justify the grant of interest @ 18% as claimed. The relief to that extent is declined. 7. Refund of court fees shall be granted as per rules. Advocate’s cost also will be computed as per the rule. Decree be drawn up accordingly. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)