IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2057 OF 2008.. Perfect Machine Tools Co. Ltd. .... ...Appellant. V/s M.B.Potekar.... ..... ....Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani i/by M/s.Haresh Mehta & Co., Adv. For the appellant. Mr.M.B.Potekar-in-person. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 25th March, 2009. PC: This appeal is directed against final decree passed by the Court below. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not challenge the preliminary decree. Hence in view of section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellant stands precluded from disputing the correctness of the preliminary decree. The respondent had instituted a suit for accounts and the same came to be decreed. A direction was issued in the preliminary decree that the accounts of the appellant- company be examined and inspected through the Court Commissioner in connection with suit transactions for determining the dues payable by the appellant to the respondent-plaintiff. In the final decree proceedings court commissioners were appointed on four occasions but on account of non cooperation from the present appellant the 1 accounts could not be examined and inspected. The Commissioner appointed on the fourth occasion by name Mr.C.J.Awekar was so appointed by consent of both the parties. However he was unable to execute the commission on account of non cooperation from the appellant. The plaintiff filed his examination in chief on affidavit and also led oral evidence with the permission of the court. The plaintiff was not cross examined by the present appellant/defendant. Thus his evidence has gone unchallenged. The appellant chose not to lead any evidence. Thus on the basis of unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff after taking into consideration material and evidence placed on record the Court below passed a money decree in the sum of Rs. 5,73,592/- together with interest. Perused the impugned judgment. Same does not call for any interference. In the result appeal is summarily dismissed. 2