1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.574 OF 2007 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.327 OF 2004 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.3843 OF 2003 Vinod Arora ..... Appellant vs. Maxwell Industries Ltd. & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. A.G. Damle, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal for respondent no.1. Coram : V.C. Daga & Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, JJ. Date : 18th August 2009. PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused appeal. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18th February 2005 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in the Summons for Judgment No.327 of 2004 in Summary Suit No.3843 of 2003 whereby the conditional leave is granted to the defendant Nos.1,3 and 4 to defend the suit on deposit of Rs.12,50,000/- in this Court within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the order. 3. By the same order, the learned Judge has granted unconditional leave to defend in favour of defendant No.2 who had prima facie made out a case of settlement of dispute on payment 2 of Rs.12,50,000/- in full and final settlement. 4. This defence was not corroborated by the defendent no.3 and went on to set-up a case of dissolution of the firm w.e.f. 1st April 2001. Considering the contradictory affidavit filed by the other defendant, who did not subscribe to the defence of the defendant no.2. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the defendant no.2 alone has made out an arguable case of discharge of liability to the extent of Rs.12,50,000/-. Defendant no.3/appellant herein chose to remain absent at the time of hearing though he had engaged advocate to represent him. So far as the other defendants are concerned, they did not appear. No documents and/or books of account were produced by them. At any rate, the learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion with which no fault can be found. Appeal is without any merits. In the results, it is liable to be dismissed. Order accordingly. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the Notice of Motion No.203 of 2006 does not survive. Period for compliance of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is extended by another eight weeks from today, failing which legal consequences to follow. No order as to costs. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J) ( V.C. Daga, J.)