: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.211 OF 2009 Veena K. Jetlay .. Plaintiff V/s. Rameshchandra D. Dalal & Anr. .. Defendants ..... Mr. Devang R. Sanghvi for the plaintiff None for the defendants ..... CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 31ST JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. This is a summary suit on dishonoured cheques. 2. It is stated that the suit is filed as a summary suit by invoking Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code on account of the fact that defendants and plaintiff were known to each other. The plaintiff has handed over some shares to the defendants and had signed several blank forms. The shares were misplaced and lost, their money equivalent was not paid. In these circumstances, a writing was executed on 11th August, 2005 which is duly signed by the son of defendant No.1 in the presence of defendant No.1 abovenamed. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have signed on this writing. They have also acknowledged liabilities in : 2 : writing. The defendants stated that since the shares have been lost, they would pay the value thereof in money and in discharge their liability, handed over two cheques details of which are set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint. 3. Upon presentation, these cheques were dishonoured and paragraph 7 states that the Bank Memos are dated 1st August, 2006. Thereafter the suit notice came to be issued which was duly served and received by the defendants. 4. Despite receipt of the same, the defendants did not take any steps to pay the monies under the dishonoured cheques. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has invoked Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code and has stated that the suit claim falls within the ambit of Order 37 Rule 2 and no relief not covered thereby has been claimed. 5. Having satisfied myself that the plaint averment falls within the purview of the aforesaid statutory provisions, that the cheques were issued at Bombay, they were payable at Bombay, they were presented at Bombay and even dishonoured at Bombay, thus, the entire cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction as well. Considering the value of the cheques, further the cheques were dishonoured by the Memo of the Bank on 1st August, 2006, the present suit has been filed on 19th September, 2008 : 3 : and, therefore, the claim is within limitation. 6. It is stated that the original documents are filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate as proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiation Instrument Act are presently going on before the said Court. The said Court has issued certificate to this effect and, therefore, the photocopies of the documents, which are filed in originals in the said Court, are brought on record. In the light of the above, the photocopies of the original documents and on the undertaking that the original documents will be duly produced, the photocopies together with the certificate are taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. There is no impediment in law in passing the decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The suit is accordingly decreed as prayed. Advocate's cost to be computed as per rules. Certified copies expedited. Court Fees to be refunded as per rules. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)