JUDGMENT:- The plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of Rs.15,14,474/-. The plaintiffs have also prayed for interest to the tune of Rs.10,86,495.52 @ 24% p.a., from the date of the dishonour, till filing of the suit. The plaintiffs have also claimed interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the filing of the suit till realization and costs.

2. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit on the basis of four cheques of different dates totaling to Rs.15,14,474/-, which eventually got dishonoured on 12-12-2002.

3. The present suit is basically filed on the basis of four dishonoured cheques by taking the benefit of provisions of Order 37 of C.P.C. Accordingly, the plaintiffs had taken out Summons for Judgment. The Summons for Judgment was decided on merits. By an order dated 07 -10- 2008, the defendants were ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 12-11-2008 and subject to that condition, the defendants were permitted to file the written statement. It is an admitted fact that the defendants have not complied with the order dated 07 -1 0- 2008. The plaintiffs have therefore, filed affidavit of evidence and tendered in the Court original documents, namely four dishonoured cheques and the bank memos, showing the reasons of dishonour and have prayed for a decree in accordance with the provisions of Order 37, Rules 3(6)(b). It is in these circumstances, the suit was posted for ex-parte decree on the last occasion. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel Mr. Bobade on behalf of the plaintiffs on 0902-2009 and the matter was posted today for ex-parte decree.

4. Before I could take up the dictation of the order, the learned counsel Mr. Shah, appearing on behalf of the defendants, objected to this Court passing a decree and contended that the defendants have a right to cross-examine the plaintiffs and their witness through the counsel of the defendants and that is how he wanted this Court to give an opportunity to the defendants to go for a full-fledged trial and then consider the matter on merits and pass a decree. In these circumstances, it is become necessary for this Court to ascertain as to whether the Court should pass a decree as prayed for by the plaintiffs, only after the plaintiffs put their witness in the box, allow the defendants to cross-examine the witnesses, carrying out the procedural part of recording of evidence, hear the counsel on the merits of the matter and then pass a decree.

5. In order to decide the aforesaid point, I have heard learned counsel Mr. Bobade, for the plaintiffs and Mr. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant.

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, read to me the provisions of Order 37, Rule 3(6)(b) of C.P.C., and pointed out that if the Court puts the defendant to certain terms and if the defendants failed to comply with the terms and carry out the directions as may be given by the Court, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a Judgment forthwith. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, took me through the words in particular, "Plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith", and submitted that the summary procedure provided under Order 37, does not contemplate recording of formal evidence by the Court so far as the plaintiff's case is concerned, when the defendant has not complied with the order passed pursuant to the procedure adopted for the disposal of Summons for Judgment set out in Order 37, Rule 3 of C.P.C. Mr. Bobade, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, further submitted that once the defendant fails to comply with the order passed by the Court in the matter of deposit of monies, there is no question of recording formal evidence and pass an order. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the Court has to consider the case of the plaintiff on the basis of the record before it and consider whether a decree on merits can be passed by applying the principles, as if the claim of the plaintiff has gone unchallenged.

7. Mr. Shah, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document