*1* sj.298.09.ss.1178.09.924.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.298 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1178 OF 2009 Nova Construction. ..Plaintiff -versus- Mulund Neeta CHS Ltd.. ..Defendant ............ Mr.Uday Bobade i/by Mukesh Subramaniam, for the Plaintiff. ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 12th December, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr.Bobde, learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff. The suit is filed to recover the sums stated to be due under the contract. That contract is stated to be between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for carrying out repair works to the building of the Defendant Society. The Plaintiffs are claiming to be builders and contractors. They submitted a proposal which was accepted by the Defendant and according to the Plaintiffs, after the work was carried out, running bills were forwarded to the Defendants. It is stated that certain bills were raised and part payment has been made. But, there was interim Bill No.1 which was revised by RA Bill No.2. There is also subsequent Bill No.3 for the internal works carried out by the Plaintiffs. Both of which remained unpaid. 2 From documents that are produced for my perusal, there is nothing by which one could conclude that the amounts have been paid with reference to any specific bill and as to how the Plaintiffs term the bill dated 25.08.2007 as interim one and the very bill which refers to *2* sj.298.09.ss.1178.09.924.sxw incomplete work is stated to be revised bill and that was styled as RA Bill No.2. In these circumstances and when accounts of the Plaintiffs are not produced, this is not a case where the suit can be decreed or any conditional order can be passed. The Summons for Judgment is, therefore, disposed of. Liberty is given to the Plaintiffs to apply for reliefs as are permissible in law, if in case any part of the claim is admitted by the Defendants. 3 The Summons for Judgment is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)