IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 438 OF 2009 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.403 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1938 OF 2007 Bhaskar Purushottamdas Upadhyaya and others. ... Appellants Versus Nalin Pravin Shah and others. ... Respondents Mr. S.R. More for the appellants. Mr. Melvyn Fernandes i/by M/s. Rajani Associates for the respondents. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, CHIEF JUSTICE & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 30TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. Being aggrieved by an order passed in Summons for Judgment No. 403 of 2007 in Summary Suit No.1938 of 2007 dated 6th August, 2009, this appeal has been filed by original defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 7. 2. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that inspite of irregularities in the promissory note, the learned Single Judge had passed an order in the summary suit whereby the appellants have been directed to make payment. It has been thereafter submitted that the plaint has been verified only by one of the plaintiffs and not all the plaintiffs. According to him, in aforestated circumstances, the impugned order ought not to have been made. 3. The learned advocate for the appellants has argued at length and we have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Prima facie, we do not find any irregularity in the Promissory Note and in our opinion, it is not necessary for all the plaintiffs to verify the plaint. 5. In view of the provisions or Order 6 Rule 15, it is open to one of the plaintiffs to verify the plaint. We do not see any irregularity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.