1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.1531 OF 1988 M/s.Metalex Tube Industries .. Plaintiff Versus M/s.Mangeshi Chemicals & Metals and Anr. .. Defendants’ Mr.R.S.Champawat for plaintiff CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7th January 2009. P.C. . It appears that in this suit, the defendants and their Advocates have remained absent, although, duly served. However, they had filed written statement and, therefore, the Court framed the issues on 27th August 2008. Accordingly, directions were given to file original documents and affidavit of evidence. 2. Plaintiffs have filed an affidavit in 2 lieu of examination in chief of their witness Mr.I.S.Dewal, partner of the plaintiff. The deponent has confirmed his signature below the affidavit. He states tha the same is prepared after perusal of the records. He confirms the statements therein. This affidavit is therefore taken on record and the contents of the same together with the plaint can be relied upon. 3. In para 1 of his deposition, the witness has stated that the plaintiffs are duly registered firm. The Registration under Partnership Act 1932 is referred to along with registration number and date. It is stated that on 4th December 1985 the firm is registered and true extract of registration of plaintiff’s firm has been produced on record. The same is marked as Exh.P-1. 4. There is no appearance on behalf of defendants and none has come forward to cross 3 examine the plaintiffs’ witness with regard to the version set out in para 1 about the registration of the firm. None has disputed the contents of the extract from the Registrar of Firms either. In these circumstances, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiffs. 5. As far as Issue No.2 is concerned, plaintiff has pointed out that the first defendant is sole proprietary concern and second defendant is sole proprietor thereof. They were carrying on business in metal goods as set out in para 2 of the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. 6. Thereafter, the details of the transaction between the plaintiffs and the defendants are set out. The defendants had placed order pursuant to which the goods were supplied and sold by plaintiffs. There are 27 invoices raised by the plaintiffs on these 4 defendants, all of which are referred to in details by the witness. In para 4 of the affidavit, it is stated that the goods under these invoices were despatched from Mumbai and delivered to defendants at Pune. The names of the Transporter, the details of the lorry receipts and their numbers are set out in para 4. 7. Once again there is no cross examination of plaintiffs’ witness on these aspects and the witness has categorically referred to the documents and their contents. Once he refers to the documents and their contents and states that they have been issued by the plaintiffs and/or the Transporters, there is no impediment in exhibiting them. Accordingly, the invoices shall stand marked as Exhibits P-2 colly., whereas the lorry receipts are marked as Exh.P-3 colly. 8. It is in such circumstances that the claim arises and I have no hesitation in 5 concluding that Issue No.2 is also proved by the plaintiffs. They have supplied the goods and they have called upon the defendants to pay the price thereof. 9. Rest of the affidavit deals with the demands made and the part payment by the defendants. There is due account of the part payments which are received by cheque and after deducting the same, the plaintiffs are claiming the sum of Rs.3,46,564.80. The details in paras 5 to 8 are with regard to the part payment and the cheques which were forwarded but dishonoured on presentation. The suit notice and the letter dated 27th January preceding the same are also placed on record. Office copies thereof are exhibited as Exh.P-4 and 5. The cheques which are duly received/ dishonoured along with the relevant bank details are taken on record and marked as Exh.P-6 colly. 6 10. It is in such circumstances that I am satisfied that the claim has been duly proved by the plaintiffs. The affidavit duly sets out the demand raised and the reply thereto, including the payment sought to be made by the cheques but which were presented and dishonoured. The original letter dated 24th January 1987 which was addressed by the defendants to the plaintiffs is taken on record and marked Exh.P-7. Office copy of the notice dated 19th March 1988 and postal acknowledgement thereof is marked as Exh.P-8. 11. There is no plea raised about jurisdiction nor is it contended that the suit claim is barred by limitation. Even otherwise, I have satisfied myself that the claim is maintainable before this Court. This Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit, inasmuch as leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent has been granted by this Court. In the light of the fact that plaintiff has produced 7 original documents and has proved their contents as well, it is entitled to a decree as prayed. Further, there has been no cross examination of the plaintiffs nor has the defendant entered the witness box to prove its claim with regard to particulars of claim. The sum along with interest is not disputed so also the rate of interest. Hence, there will be decree as prayed. Advocate’s cost to be computed as per rules. C.C. expedited. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)