1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO. 358 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1903 OF 2008 Vinod Thakkar .. Plaintiff versus Vinay Mahapathi .. Defendant ... Mr.C.A. Athani with Ms.Sonali Kunekar i/b Mr.Vikas Mahangare for the plaintiff. Mr.Muksh V. Aiya for defendant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 1st April 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard both sides. 2. This Summons for Judgement is taken out in a suit filed for recovery of money. There was no written contract between the parties. Goods appear to have been supplied on the basis of oral orders. 2 Invoices do not bear the signatures of the defendant. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that by a letter dated 14th November 2007 the defendant has promised to pay and that letter constitutes written agreement to pay. That letter is not writen by the defendant but is written by Graphic Print Art, which is stated to be a sister concern of the defendant. In my view promise by a third party to pay cannot be construed as a written contract by the defendant. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not satisfied that the suit is based upon a written contract. Hence, the suit cannot be tried as a summary suit but would have to be tried as a regular suit. In any event, in the facts and circumstances of case, I am inclined to grant unconditional leave to the defendant. 4. Accordingly, defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend the suit. Suit is transferred to the list of commercial causes. Defendant shall file written statement within eight weeks. 3 (D.G. KARNIK, J)