((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.70 OF 2008 Hiralal S. Parmar Plaintiff versus Suag Optical Services & ors. Defendants Mr.Ramesh Jain for plaintiff. None for defendants. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12th December 2008 PC : 1. The noting of the registry shows that the writ of summons as required by sub rule 2 of Rule 2 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been served to the defendants. The registry noting further shows that the affidavit of service has been filed and the concerned defendants have not entered appearance. 2. The original documents are placed on record. The first defendant for valuable consideration had drawn a bill of exchange dated 13th April 2008 in the sum of Rs.2.40 lakhs directing thereby the second defendant to ((-2-)) pay to the plaintiff the said amount. The bill of exchange was accepted by the second defendant. it is stated in the plaint that the second defendant dishonoured the same by non payment. Though a demand notice was issued to the defendants they have failed to make payment of the amount. 3. In view of sub Rule 3 of Order 2 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for. However, further interest will have to be fixed @ 12% p.a. instead of 18% p.a.. 4. Hence, the suit is decreed as prayed with a modification that further interest payable will be @ 12@ p.a.. 5. The plaintiff will be entitled to refund of court fees as per Rules. Certified copy is expedited. (A.S.OKA, J.)