: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO.274 OF 2007 SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO.274 OF 2007 SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO.274 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.3673 OF 2001 SUMMARY SUIT NO.3673 OF 2001 SUMMARY SUIT NO.3673 OF 2001 Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. .. Plaintiffs. Versus M/s.Intra Deco Ltd. & Ors. .. Defendants. Mr.Subodh S.Sawant for the plaintiffs. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 15th October, 2008. DATE : 15th October, 2008. DATE : 15th October, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. The summons for judgement was served upon defendant Nos.1 and 3 through their Advocates. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the plaintiffs. Though summons for judgement was served, no affidavit-in-reply is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 3. : 2 : 3. Suit is filed against defendant No.1 as the Acceptor of the bill of exchange and suit is filed against defendant No.3 on the basis of the document of guarantee said to have been executed by defendant No.3 in favour of the plaintiffs. 4. A perusal of the plaint would go to show that the plaintiffs have not specifically mentioned in the plaint that the 2 causes of action are being joined and on the strength of the guarantee document, defendant No.3 is being joined as a party defendant and the suit filed to enforce the said guarantee document specifically. The particulars of the claim only restrict to the bill of exchange. All this will clearly go to show that the institution of the suit against defendant No.3 on the strength of the guarantee document cannot be considered in this summons for judgement. 5. Insofar as suit against defendant No.1 is concerned, in the absence of affidavit-in-reply to the summons for judgement and in the face of the original bill of exchange which was produced, the plaintiffs have been able to make out a case and, therefore, I am inclined to direct defendant No.1 to deposit in this court, a sum of : 3 : Rs.25.00 lacs to enable them to defend the suit. Sofar as defendant No.3 is concerned, defendant No.3 will have to be granted unconditional leave to defend. Hence the order:- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R i) Upon defendant No.1 depositing a sum of Rs.25.00 lacs in this court on or before 8.11.2008, defendant No.1 is permitted to file written statement. ii) Unconditional leave is granted to defendant No.3. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 to file written statements, if they so desire, directly in the court on 15.12.2008. 6. Suit set down for filing written statement on 15.12.2008. With this, summons for judgement stands disposed of. Original bill of exchange is returned to the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs. (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.)