1 sj220.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 220 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2214 OF 2009 Ashish Vasanji Shah ......Plaintiff. Vs. Manoj Katyal ......Defendant. Mr. Mahesh Y. Dhuri for the Plaintiff. Mr. Navin S. Joshi i/by Mr. Hiranya Pandey for the Defendant. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE :- 9 DECEMBER 2011. P.C.:- The Plaintiff has taken out this Summary Suit and a Summons for Judgment on the foundation of non-payment of the amount inspite of delivery of the goods. 2 The Defendant in the reply opposed the averments so made and also the documents relied by the Plaintiff, apart from the objection even to the signature of the servant/employees of the Defendant on 2 sj220.10.sxw ssm the delivery challens. 3 In support of this contention supporting the averments made in the plaint, the Plaintiff has annexed basic documents showing the receipts/ acknowledgments of the goods ranging from 4 February 2006 upto 11 May 2006. There is no denial to the fact that the claim is based upon the last two invoices dated 4 April 2006 and 11 May 2006. 4 The Suit lodged on 9 July 2009 and filed on 25 August 2009. 5 The submission that the cheques were bounced in August 2006 and the Defendants by a fax message/communication promised to make the earlier payments and requested for fresh business by letter dated 18 November 2006, in my view no way brings the Suit within limitation as there is no acknowledgment as contemplated in law of liability. Therefore, there is no case of acknowledgment or liability within limitation. The Defendant, therefore, in my view, made out the case for grant of unconditional leave. 6 Resultantly, the leave is granted to the Defendant. The 3 sj220.10.sxw ssm Defendant to file written Statement within 30 days. 7 The Summary Suit be transferred to the Commercial Causes. 8 The Summons for Judgment is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)