ndm 1 ss.3054.08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3054 OF 2008 Rajesh Asalraj Jain. ... PLAINTIFF Vs. M/s. Benzsal Corporation and anr. ... DEFENDANTS -------------- Ms. Neeta Solanki i/b M/s. Kiran Jain and Company for Plaintiff. -------------- CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATE : 26th November, 2009. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the Plaintiff. The present suit is filed under the provisions of Order 37, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for recovery of an amount of Rs.67,358/- with interest @ 21% per annum on Rs.42,416/-. A writ of summons was issued against the Defendants. The Plaintiff has filed affidavit dated 06 th January, 2009 of Mr. Kisan K.Naik, Clerk of the Sheriff of Bombay. The affidavit shows that the Defendant No.1 is duly served. So far as Defendant No.2 is concerned, the postal packets sent to him was returned back with the postal remark ndm 2 ss.3054.08.sxw “Intimation Posted”. I have perused original postal packets, which is annexed at Exhibit – B to the service affidavit. There is an endorsement of the postman on the packets disclosing that the packets are not claimed by the Defendant No.2. The Defendant No.2 is the proprietor of the Defendant No.1 proprietary firm and therefore, I conclude that the Defendants are duly served. However, none appeared on their behalf in the suit. 2 The Plaintiff is carrying business in the name of M/s. Prag Pharma Chem. The Defendant No. 1 is proprietary firm of which the Defendant No.2 is the sole proprietor. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he has sold, supplied and delivered goods to Defendants under various bills raised and delivered from time to time on the terms and conditions mentioned on the bills with 30 days credit period. In case of the delay the Plaintiff would be entitled for interest at the rate of 21% per annum. The Defendants have duly received and acknowledged the delivery of the goods under the invoice alongwith delivery challan. It is further case of the Plaintiff that Defendants did not clear payments in respect of the ndm 3 ss.3054.08.sxw following invoices. Sr. No. Date Invoice No. Amount in Rs. 1. 24.08.2005 AUG / 109 20,706.00 2 09.11.2005 NOV / 102 21,710.00 =========== 42,426.00 3 The Defendants have not made any payment inspite of several reminders and ultimately Plaintiff was constrained to send demand notice dated 09.08.2009. Inspite of receipt of the said demand notice, the Defendants did not make any payment, which was due under the above said invoices nor replied the said notice. 4 The Plaintiff has tendered original documents namely above invoices dated 24.08.2005 and 09.11.2005 alongwith the delivery challan. Challance are signed on behalf of the Defendant No.1. I have also perused the demand notice dated 09.08.2008 and the acknowledgment of the Defendants in respect of the said demand notice. The above document does prove that the Plaintiff has sold chemicals mentioned in the invoices to the Defendants and Defendants accepted delivery. ndm 4 ss.3054.08.sxw However, not paid to the Plaintiff the amount of the said chemicals. 5 The Defendants though served in the month of November, 2008, neither have bothered to file written statement nor put appearance in the above suit. The contents of the plaint therefore, deemed to have been admitted by the Defendants, in absence of any contest thereto. The suit therefore will have to be decreed under the provisions of Order 37, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. 6 The suit is accordingly decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). Decree to be drawn accordingly. Refund of Court-fees as per rule. [ R.V. MORE, J ]