:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NO. 1833 OF 2007 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 67 OF 2003 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3517 OF 2002 Harish Ram Raheja ...Plaintiff Versus M/s.Monalisa Enterprises ....Defendants ====== None for the Judgment Debtor. Kailash Maurya i/by. L.V.Jain for the plaintiffs. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 1ST APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This is a Notice under Order 21 Rule 22 of the CPC. The Notice has been duly served. There is an appearance filed on behalf of the judgment debtor but :2: :2: :2: the Advocate is absent. There is an ex-parte Decree passed in favour of the plaintiff-Decree Holder in the above summary Suit and the Office Report shows that the Decree has been partly satisfied by making some intermittent payments. Despite the Notice being served, none is present on behalf of the Decree Holder to dispute the claim or to demonstrate as to how the Decree cannot be executed and enforced. All requirements under Order 21 Rule 22 having satisfied, the Notice is made absolute. *************