acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1301 OF 1999 Dilip S. Hate ... Plaintiff. Vs. Suresh Jogani ....Defendant. ---- Mr. Vachan Bodake i/b Chitnis Vaithy & Co., for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendant. ---- CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 30TH JULY, 2009 P.C. 1. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The claim is in respect of the refund of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant under an alleged misrepresentation. According to the Plaintiff in the year 1996 the Defendant holding himself out as the chief promoter of the proposed Co-operative Society represented that the Government of Maharashtra had allotted a piece of land to the Society. The Defendant made representations to the Plaintiff to develop the said land. Parties, therefore, entered into an agreement dated 29th February, 1996 for the development of the land for a total : 2 : consideration of Rs.17,97,15,000/-. Upon execution of the said agreement, the Plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by a cheque and Rs.50,000/- by cash. The said transaction was through an estate broker. The Plaintiff further stated that he had even deposited a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- lacs with the Bank with a view to go ahead with the transaction. 2. The Defendant, however, denied the execution of the agreement. The Plaintiff ,however, asserted that although there is an application for the said proposed Society for the allotment of land, the same was never alloted by the Government of Maharashtra. 3. The Plaintiff has examined himself by filing an affidavit-in-lieu of examination-in-chief. He has confirmed the correctness and contents thereof. A compilation of document, tendered on behalf of the Plaintiff, was taken on record and marked “A” (Colly). The Defendant has not filed a written statement. The Defendant has also not appeared in the Court. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff has pointed out the order dated 6th July, 2009 and fairly states that a copy of the written statement has been served upon him. By the said order the Office was directed to ascertain whether the written statement has been filed by the defendant and if so, to place it on : 3 : record. The office report dated 10th July, 2009 shows that no written statement has been filed by the Defendant in this court. 4. There is nothing on record that militates against the Plaintiff’s claim in the suit. The suit is therefore decreed as prayed, with costs to be quantified as per rules. 5. Refund, if any, as per rules.