[1] IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 998 OF 2005 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 445 OF 2004 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 196 OF 2004 Studio 2100 & anr. ... Appellants. [Orig.defts. No.1&2] Vs. Taj Kerala Hotels & Resorts Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondents [Orig.pltffs/orig. deft.No.3] alongwith APPEAL NO. 999 OF 2005 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 450 OF 2004 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 194 OF 2004 Studio 2100 & anr. ... Appellants. [Orig.defts. No.1&2] Vs. Taj Kerala Hotels & Resorts Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondents [2] [Orig.pltffs/orig. deft.No.3] alongwith APPEAL NO. 1000 OF 2005 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 447 OF 2004 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 195 OF 2004 Studio 2100 & anr. ... Appellants. [Orig.defts. No.1&2] Vs. The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondents [Respdts./org.deft. No.3] Mr. A.M.Saraogi adocate for the appellants. M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Craige Blunt & Caroe for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : March 30, 2009. : March 30, 2009. : March 30, 2009. [3] P.C. 1. It is common ground that the question involved in all the three appeals is common therefore all the three appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. 2. The appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Single judge of this Court in Summons for judgments, taken out by the Plaintiffs in these suits. The learned Single Judge has granted conditional leave to defend. The condition was relating to deposit of certain amount. Admittedly, the amount has not been deposited. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that the summary suit was based on written contract. The learned Counsel further submitted that because the plaintiff did not intimate the cheque out time of the participants they could not recover the amount from them and, therefore, they cannot be held liable. [4] 5. So far as the first submission is concerned, it is clear from the record that the bills were issued pursuant to a written contract between the parties. Therefore it cannot be said that the suit is not based on written contract between the parties. 6. So far as the second aspect is concerned, the learned Single Judge has dealt with that aspect of the matter. We do not find any infirmity in the order. There is no room for interference in the impugned order. All the three appeals are rejected. 7. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and by consent of the larned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, period for deposit of the amount mentioned in the order impugned in these appeals is extended by a period of two weeks from today. [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, J.] J.] J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]