1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 428 OF 1987 The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ... Plaintiff VS. Madhu Snap Fasteners Mfg. Co. P.Ltd. . .. Defendant Mr. U. J. Makhija i/b. Mulla & Mulla for Plaintiff. Mr. Harshad Mehta i/b. Ketan Parekh for Defendant CORAM: D.G. KARNIK J. DATE: 7/7/2006 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant has not filed the written statement for nearly 20years. Learned counsel for the defendant orally prays for time to file written statement. 2. In view of the the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Kailash vs. Nanhku and ors. reported in 2005 (2) Mh. L. J. 775 the oral request should not be entertained in the absence of facts sworn on affidavit. 3. The suit is a simple money suit. In the absence of the written 2 statement the averments made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted. I am therefore inclined to exercise my jurisdiction under Order 8 Rule 5(2) read with Order 8 Rule 10 of C.P.C. The suit of the Plaintiff is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). (D.G. KARNIK J.)