1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO. 53 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2732 OF 2008 Paresh Mehta .. Plaintiff versus M/s.Katha Mediatix India Ltd. .. Defendant ... Mr.J.S. Kini i/b Mr.Suresh Dubey for the plaintiff. Mr.A.R. Patil for the defendant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 3rd April 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. 2. This Summons for Judgement is taken out in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the amount of the bills for the services rendered including publication of advertisements at different 2 hoardings/places. 3. Though the defendant filed an appearance, it has not filed any application for leave to defend nor filed any affidavit in reply after service of Summons for Judgement. Mr.Patil is present for the defendant but does not argue anything even as a demurer. 4. As per the plaintiff’s request, the defendant carried out the publicity work including advertisement at hoardings at different places. The plaintiff also submitted the bills to the defendant for the services rendered. Copies of the bills are annexed to the plaint. Most of the copies bear the signature of the defendant in token of the receipt of the bills. The defendant did not make payment of the bills. However by a written letter dated 16th August 2006 the defendant admitted that an amount of Rs.74,97,192/- was due and payable by it to the plaintiff. The letter also states that the defendant had given post dated cheques worth Rs.10,00,000/- which would be cleared at the end of October 2006 or the defendant would replace them by pay orders of the bank. Copy of the letter is annexed to the plaint. Despite this, payment was not made by the defendant. 3 5. The plaintiff thereafter, by a registered letter dated 3rd July 2008 demanded payment but the defendant failed to make the payment. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery. 6. The bills contain a printed term that interest would be charged @ 24% p.a. on the unpaid bills. Though some of the bills bear signature of the defendant thereby indicating that the defendant had agreed for payment of interest some of the bills do not contain the signature of the defendant. The letter of the defendant dated 16th August 2006 admitting the liability is silent about the payment of interest. In view of this, when asked as to how the claim of interest is triable as a summary suit, learned counsel for the plaintiff gives up the entire claim of interest upto the date of the suit and prays for a decree for the principal sum plus interest u/s.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the date of the suit. 7. In the absence of any application for leave to defend and affidavit in reply, averments made in the plaint are deemed to be accepted. Plaintiff is entitled to a decree under Order 37 Rule 3(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Rule 221 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. Hence, I allow the 4 Summons for Judgement and pass the following order:- 8. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.74,36,085/- (being the principal sum) as claimed by the plaintiff in the letter dated 3rd July in the letter dated 3rd July 2008, together with interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and 9% p.a. from the date of the decree till payment and all costs of the suit. (D.G. KARNIK, J)