1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.3964 OF 1988 Vinay Laxmidas Shah L/r. of deceased Smita .. Plaintiff Versus M/s.Venus Trading Co. & Ors. .. Defendants Mr.Ramesh Jain for plaintiff CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 10th November 2008 P.C. . The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.54,084/-. The suit summons has been duly served on the defendants but there is no written statement filed. 2. First defendant is a partnership firm. The plaintiff is the heir and legal representative of his deceased wife. The deceased had advanced, during her life time, some 2 loans and the statement of account was furnished by the deceased. The statement of account was duly forwarded to the firm and it is signed by and on behalf of the first defendant. In para Nos. 3 and 4 of the plaint, this is what is stated:- "3. The plaintiff states that the defendants from time to time furnished statements of account of the said deceased Smita Vinay Shah in the form of account stated setting out therein the opening balance, interest accrued during the year, withdrawals if any and the closing balance and duly signed by and on behalf of the defendant No.1. The last of such account stated that was furnished by the defendants to the plaintiff was signed by defendant No.4 on behalf of defendant No.1 as on 31.3.1986 where a sum of Rs.61,549.92 was shown to the 3 credit of deceased Smita Vinay Shah as due and payable by the defendants to her. Thereafter, the plaintiff had received back a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 4.7.1986. Hence on 5.7.1986 the sum of Rs.36,549.92 was shown to the credit of deceased Smita Vinay Shah." "4. The plaintiff and his wife are related to the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 and that the defendants are aware that the said Smita Vinay Shah died in or about October 1984. After her death therefore, the account of her estate was continued in the name of deceased Smita Vinay Shah. The plaintiff is the only heir and legal representative entitled to the estate of the deceased and is, therefore, entitled to the monies due under the said account stated." 4 3. It is in the above circumstances that the suit notice was addressed. Despite, some of the defendants, receiving the same, no amount was paid and that is how the instant suit. The office remark shows that all original documents so also the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief are filed in this Court on 6th November 2006. 4. Defendants have remained absent despite being duly served. There is no denial of the liability nor is there any dispute raised with regard to the averments in the plaint. Contents of the documents are also not disputed. Although there is no written statement filed on record, the plaintiffs have stepped into the box and the original affidavit in lieu of examination in chief is tendered. Defendants have failed to avail of the liberty of cross examining the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, there is substance in the contention of Mr.Shah that the 5 suit claim having not been disputed or denied, plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed. Even otherwise, I am satisfied that the suit claim is maintainable. It is not barred by law of limitation. This Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. As a result of the above, suit is decreed as prayed. Advocates’ cost to be computed as per rules. Refund of court fees, if any, as per rules. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)