1 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. CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.590 OF 2007 SUMMONS NO.590 OF 2007 SUMMONS NO.590 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1443 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO.1443 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO.1443 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.1726 OF 2004 NO.1726 OF 2004 NO.1726 OF 2004 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited : Plaintiffs versus Shri Ashok Seth & ors. : Defendants. Mr.Parag Kale for Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATED DATED DATED : 05th February 2008. : 05th February 2008. : 05th February 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The chamber summons has been taken out only on behalf of Defendant No.1 and the notice of motion, which is placed on board, has been taken out on behalf of Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4. 2 2. In the chamber summons, Defendant No.1 has sought an order for rejecting the plaint against the defendant under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is on the basis that the claim is barred by limitation. 3. In the notice of motion, Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 have sought a similar relief in prayer clause (a). In prayer clause (b), Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 have sought an order that their names be struck out under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. One of the contentions raised on behalf of defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 is also on the point of limitation. It is true that the bills pertain to the year 1996. However, it cannot be said at this stage that the suit is barred by limitation. For instance, by a letter dated 31.7.2000, addressed to the plaintiffs, Defendant No.4 stated that the subscriber-defendant was willing to pay a sum of Rs.4,200/- to be deducted from his salary per month for the purpose of paying the said bills. The question, as to whether this 3 constitutes a promise under Section 25 of the Contract Act or not would require to be decided only after the evidence is led. 5. Nor it can be stated with any degree of certainty at this stage that Defendant No.4 would not be liable to pay. It would have to be seen as to whether Defendant No.4 while seeking extension on behalf of other the defendants by a letter dated 31.7.2000 complied with their representations for deducting the amount from the salary of the subscriber and paying the same over to the plaintiff. 6. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, who resided in the said premises, appear to be defaulters not only in respect of the suit claim but also in respect of other telephone facilities. Apparently, a hunting facility was also granted. In view thereof, it would require to be examined, whether the subscribers, who are a part of a hunting facility, are responsible for payment of the telephone connections which are a part of the said facility. 7. This is not a fit case for exercising 4 powers under Order 10 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the circumstances, the notice of motion and the chamber summons are dismissed. 8. Each of the Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall pay costs of this notice of motion fixed at Rs.2,000/- each within eight weeks from today. Payment of costs is a condition precedent to the filing of the written statement, if any. ********** ********** **********