:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUMMARY SUMMARY SUIT NO. 4099 OF 2003 SUIT NO. 4099 OF 2003 SUIT NO. 4099 OF 2003 Bank of Baroda. ...Plaintiff. V/s. Anil Jagdish Nemawarkar & Anr. ...Defendants. Mr. Anant R. Bamne for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 1ST 1ST 1ST DECEMBER 2008. DECEMBER 2008. DECEMBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This is a Bank Suit. The Plaintiff Bank granted financial assistance to the First Defendant and the dues of the First Defendant is Guaranteed by Defendant No.2 Guarantor. 2. From paragraphs 3 to 12 of the plaint all details of the facility extended by the Plaintiff - Banker have been set out. In paragraph 13 it is stated that both Defendants are working and residing at Mumbai. All documents were executed at Mumbai and amount is payable at Mumbai. The Suit is filed on 1st December 2003 to recover a sum demanded by the Plaintiff by Advocate’s letter dated 7th November 2003. It is pointed out as to how the various facilities were granted and when the amounts thereunder became due and payable. It is stated that the Plaintiff’s claim is not barred by limitation in the light of the averments in the plaint. :2: 3. Mr. Bamne has tendered all original documents which are referred to and relied upon in the plaint. The original documents are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. The affidavit proving service is taken on record and marked ‘X-1’ for identification. 4. From a reading of the plaint averments and perusal of the documents, I am satisfied that the Bank’s claim is maintainable in law, that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try it so also it is not barred by limitation. 5. Despite service of writ of summons, no written statement is filed. No appearance is filed by the Defendants. There is no dispute or denial of the suit claim. 6. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed. 7. Accordingly, there will be decree as prayed. The Advocate’s costs to be quantified as per Rules. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)