1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.869 OF 2007 Mirchandani & Co. ...Plaintiff Vs. Nilesh N. Mantri ...Defendant Mr.H.V.Chande for Plaintiff Mr. Pankaj Das for Defendant CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 4 TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1. The Plaintiff has filed this summary suit for recovery of Rs.11,60,864.34 with interest at the rate of 20% p.a on the principle amount of Rs.7,91,516.34 from the date of the suit until payment. The suit is filed upon the agreement between the parties as confirmed by the Defendant in the Defendant's letters dated 24 th February 2005 and 14 th March 2005, which refer to the Defendant's account with the Plaintiffs for several financial years, which outstanding the Defendant offered to clear. 2. The Defendant has been served by registered post through the Sheriff's office. The Plaintiff has filed the affidavit of service showing the letter of the Superintendent 2 of the department of Posts stating that the articles sent in the suit has been delivered to the Defendant No.1 on 26th April 2006. The Defendant has not entered the appearance pursuant to service. 3. The Plaintiff has tendered original documents signed by the Defendants. The documents are taken on record and marked Exhibit- A (colly). Suit is decreed as prayed. 4. The Plaintiff shall be returned the original documents upon production of xerox copies. Refund as per rules. 5. The Chamber Summons No.1585 of 2008 is dismissed for default. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) Lateron – after Recess : 6. The Chamber Summons No.1585 of 2008 has been dismissed earlier today. On the application of the Advocate for the Defendant who has taken out this Chamber Summons, the order of dismissal is set aside. 7. The Chamber Summons is restored to file and heard on merits. 3 8. The case on merits made out in the Chamber Summons is that the Defendant did not have knowledge of the service of the writ of summons, because he had gone to Gujarat along with his wife before the service was made. His son was at the suit address. The son was served. The son did not inform the Defendant until the Defendant returned to the suit address after which the Defendant acquired knowledge of the Suit. 9. The Defendant must substantiate the statement that he had gone to Gujarat as stated by him in paragraph 3 of his affidavit in reply. The Defendant has not substantiated that statement at all. The Defendant has not stated how he went to Gujarat. The Defendant's Advocate states that he may be able to obtain record to substantiate that statement. He does not know what that record is. There is no case made out in the affidavit to show why the delay in filing the Vakalatnama can be condoned. 10. Mr. Chande states that unregistered copy of the Chamber Summons was sent to the Defendant in July 2007 and the Chamber Summons has been registered in 2008. 11. The Chamber summons is dismissed on merits. 4 12. The decree passed earlier today is confirmed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)