1 ss2816-06.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMARY SUIT NO.2816 OF 2006 Anjanabai Bhaskar Ghuge & Anr .. Plaintiffs versus Buranddin Binderwala & Anr .. Defendants Mr.Laxminarayan i/by Legal Vision for the plaintiff No.1. None for the defendant. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 5th October 2011. P.C.: . It is stated by the plaintiff’s advocate that the writ of summons is duly served on the defendants. The 1st defendant has expired and his name is deleted but the 2nd defendant Munira Buranuddin Binderwala is the sole heir and legal representative of the original defendant No.2. The original defendant No.1 has already been deleted. The sole defendant was served with the writ of summons and the packet contained the plaint and annexures thereto, but no appearance has been filed. The affidavit proving service is taken on record. It is marked “X” for identification. It is stated in the plaint that initially there was an agreement between the parties in which certain immovable property 2 ss2816-06.doc was to be sold to the plaintiffs. There was a memo of Agreement. Some amount was received as token/earnest for due fulfillment of the obligations in this Memorandum of Understanding. Subsequently, that Memorandum of Understanding was cancelled, but the defendants admitted on affidavit that they have received the sum of Rs.2 lakhs from the plaintiffs. Therefore, they refunded the same by forwarding two cheques in the sum of Rs.1 lakh each, details of which have been set out in para 7 of the plaint. 2 It is stated that the claim in the suit is not barred by law of limitation. This Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The claim falls squarely under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 because the suit is instituted on dishonour of cheque. 3 My attention is invited to the original documents and it is clear that two cheques have been signed by the sole defendant. They have been presented to their banker, viz., Dena Bank, but they have been returned on the grounds “Funds Insufficient”. Thus, the issuance of the cheques and their dishonour is confirmed. There is also an admission of liability in terms of the affidavit. The original documents are, therefore, taken on 3 ss2816-06.doc record and marked “X1” collectively. It is clear that there is no denial or dispute of the liability. The defendants have failed to appear despite service of writ of summons which is evidenced by the affidavit proving service. For all these reasons, there will be decree as prayed. Advocate’s costs will be computed as per rules. Refund of Court fees as per rules. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)