In this summary suit regarding non-payment of invoices for supplied goods, the court noted the lack of defence due to non-appearance. The court held the claim maintainable, not barred by limitation, and awarded a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
A decree was granted as prayed for, with refund of court fees and computation of costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
((-1-))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUMMARY SUIT NO.6551 OF 1999
Arvind Maganlal Shah Plaintiff
versus
V.Hari Mohan and others Defendants
Mr.N.R.Patel for plaintiff.
None for defendant
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 18th July 2005
PC :
1. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff
states that he is seeking a decree as against
defendants 1, 3 and 4. He tenders affidavit
proving service of writ of summons. The same is
taken on record and marked "X" for
identification. In the said affidavit, it is
pointed out that the writ of summons has been
served on defendants 1, 3 and 4 and they have
acknowledged receipt thereof. Original documents
along with list taken on record and marked "X-1"
for identification.
2. The claim in the summary suit arises out of a
written contract as evidenced by the purchase
((-2-))
orders, delivery challans and invoices under
which the plaintiff sold, supplied and delivered
goods which are referred to therein. It is
pointed out that defendant no.1 made payment of
Rs.10,000/- by cheque towards part payment of the
invoice amount of Rs.65,951/-. Since the balance
amount was not paid, a demand notice was
addressed on 21nd November 1997 and 10th January
1998. All that has been pointed out to the
plaintiff in reply to this demand notice is some
internal dispute between the defendants.
Plaintiff made independent demands on each one of
them. It is his case that defendants are liable
jointly and severally to pay the amounts under
the invoices with interest. I am satisfied that
claim in the suit is maintainable under
provisions of Order XXXVII of CPC.. Further, it
is not barred by limitation. There is no defence
inasmuch as despite writ of summons being served,
none has entered appearance. There is, thus, no
dispute about the claim.
3. Accordingly, there will be a decree as
prayed. Refund of court fees and computation of
advocates costs as per rules. Drawing up of
decree is expedited.
((-3-))
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim arising from a written contract for supply of goods is maintainable under Order XXXVII of CPC.
Whether the claim is barred by limitation despite non-payment of the balance invoice amount.
Whether a decree can be passed in the absence of appearance by the defendants after service of writ of summons.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court