1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2740 OF 1984 Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. .. Plaintiff Versus Sudam Valha Patil & Anr. .. Defendants Mr.Yatin Shah for plaintiff None for defendants. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 12th January 2009. P.C. . Mr.Shah, learned Counsel appearing for plaintiffs states that both defendants have been served as is evident from the affidavit proving service, which has been taken on record by this Court on 17th December 2008. He further states that the plaintiffs have filed affidavit of evidence and original documents along with list. He further states that both the defendants have failed to appear before this Court. They have 2 not raised any dispute to the suit claim. 2. The affidavit of the Legal Manager of the plaintiffs is tendered. The deponent thereof confirms the statements in the affidavit of evidence and the signature appearing below the same. The original documents listed at Serial Nos. 1 to 3 and Carbon copy of the letter addressed by plaintiffs’ Advocate to first defendant along with postal acknowledgement enlisted at serial numbers 4 and 5 are also produced by the witness. He has also produced the original Marathi letter which was addressed by the first defendant to the plaintiffs and duly received by them along with its official translation. 3. All other documents which evidence that the vehicles were purchased by the defendants in pursuance of the facilities extended to them are produced. The monthly hire charges have not been 3 paid and later on the vehicles were seized and sold by the plaintiffs but the amount due and payable after adjusting the sale proceeds were not forwarded to plaintiffs. It is in such circumstances and when there is no dispute that the facility was extended, vehicles purchased and used but there is default committed, the witness states that the amount is due and payable. 4. There are no denials of the averments contained in the affidavit of evidence so also the documents. I have satisfied myself that the suit claim is maintainable before this Court and it is not time barred. The plaintiffs have duly obtained leave of this Court under clause 12 of the Letters Patent on 6th November 1984. In such circumstances, this Court is competent to entertain and try the suit. 5. The original documents along with compilation and affidavit of evidence are taken 4 on record and marked respectively as "X" and "X-1" for identification. In the result, there will be a decree as prayed. Advocates’ cost as per rules. Office to draw up decree accordingly. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)