1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 715 OF 1989 The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. M/s. H. Gopaldas & Co. & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. Parag Khandar a/w. U.J. Makhija i/b. Mulla & Mulla for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. Mr. Sunil M. Deshmukh, Asstt. Docks Manager present. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 20TH AUGUST 2009. P.C. :- The Port Trust has instituted the instant Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.92,700/- which constitute the dues and charges more particularly set out in the plaint. 2. The Plaintiffs have set out in details as to how the claim arises and in what circumstances they have referred to the provisions which enable them to recover the amount. There is correspondence on record raising demands on the Defendants to pay the charges inasmuch as they have failed to take delivery or to remove the suit consignment otherwise. 2 3. None of the Defendants have entered appearance although they are duly served. The Writ of Summons has been already marked and certified as returned and served. 4. The Plaintiffs have filed an affidavit in lieu of evidence of their Assistant Docks Manager, who has confirmed the plaint averments and also proved the contents of the documents. He has stated that the contents therein are true and correct by pointing out in what circumstances the said documents are placed on record. 5. The original documents are compiled in a list which are also placed serially in the terms of the plaint averments. 6. There is no appearance on behalf of the Defendants. There is no dispute or denial of the liability. Despite the Plaintiffs’ witness being present in Court, the Defendants have failed to avail off the opportunity to cross-examine the Plaintiffs on their case. Thus, the statements made in the pleadings and in the affidavit of evidence have gone unchallenged, there is no dispute with regard to the contents of the documents either. 7. I have satisfied myself that the claim in the Suit is not barred by limitation and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this Suit. 3 8. In these circumstances, the affidavit of evidence which is duly signed by the Assistant Docks Manager, who confirms his signatures and the contents, is taken on record so also the original documents. In the light of the aforesaid, there will be a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants as prayed. 9. Advocates’ costs to be computed as per Rules. Refund of Court fees, if permissible. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)