1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Summons for Judgment No. 438 of 2009 . in Summary Suit No. 2377 of 2009 Ravi Steel Industries .. Plaintiffs v/s. Shri Ambika Aluminium & Others ..Defendants Mr.G.B.Kedia & Maoj Agre for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Manish Bohra i/b. M/s. A.S.Khan & Associates for the Defendants CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 7th June, 2010 P.C. : 1. Defendant No.2 is partner of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1, the the partnership firm had issued cheques in the name of the Plaintiffs towards the liability of Defendant No.1 qua the Plaintiffs. All those cheques totalling to Rs.3,60,644/- came to be dishonoured and hence this suit is filed for recovery of the said amount and for interest. Affidavit in reply is filed by the Defendant No.2 only for himself. No affidavit in reply is filed by Defendant No.1, though served. 2 2. After having heard learned Advocates on both sides, it is seen that in the affidavit in reply there is no explanation as regards the dishonour of the said cheques. Defendant No.2 has contended that various payments have been made to the plaintiffs as set out in the statement at page 9. The said statement is an extract of ledger account purported to have been maintained by Defendant no.1 in the course of its business. Except the bare word of the Defendant No.2 and the statement, there is no material to show that various payments were made. Learned Advocate for Defendant No.2 wanted to file bank documents to show that the said payments have been done. This has not been done at the time of filing of affidavit in reply. It was sought to be suggested by learned Advocate for the Defendant No.2 that there is no rejoinder for the affidavit in reply filed by Defendant No.2 on the question of payment. The bald statement made by Defendant No.2 need not be denied by the Plaintiff. Defendant No.2 has not relied upon proper documents to show that the payment has been made. 3. It was also sought to be argued by the learned Advocate for the Defendant No.2 that despite the payments made, the cheques remained in the hands of the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs put them in the 3 bank for realisation, though they were not entitled to do so. Nothing is produced before the Court to show that after due payment from time to time, as claimed by Defendant No.2, the Defendant No.2 or Defendant No.1 demanded return of the said cheques. All this goes to show that the stand of Defendant No.2 as regards dishonour of the cheque amount cannot be accepted. The Defendant No.2 have not been able to make oua case that diverse payments have been made and the claim of the Plaintiffs, is untenable. If this is the position, Defendants can defend the suit only after depositing monies. 4. Looking to the claim involved in the matter, I am inclined to direct the defendants to deposit in this Court the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Summons for Judgment is disposed of on following terms. ORDER 1. Upon Defendants or any one of them depositing the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs Only) on or before 23.7.2010, Defendants are granted time to file written statement. Suit adjourned to 9.8.2010 for written statement. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] 4