( 1 ) THE petitioners - original defendants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 30. 07. 2004 passed by the learned chamber Judge, Court No. 15, City Civil court, Ahmedabad below application Exh. 11 in Summary Special Suit No. 3702 of 2002 and the consequential decree dated 30. 07. 2004 and further praying for quashing and setting aside the Execution/darkhast No. 364/2004 pending in the City Civil Court, ahmedabad.

( 2 ) THE petition was admitted and rule was issued on 15. 02. 2005. The decree passed in Summary Suit No. 3702 of 2002 dated 30. 07. 2004 was stayed on condition that the petitioners shall deposit Rs. 50,000/-with the Trial Court within a period of 30 days from the date of the said order. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by the petitioners within the time granted by this court and stay is in operation till this date. It is the case of the respondent-original plaintiff in the Summary Suit filed before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad that the petitioners are dealing in manufacturing, distribution and sales of edible sweets, namkeen and other items with different brand names, mainly, Mohan Namkeen and mohanlal S. Mithaiwala. The petitioner No. 1 had launched the said products in the city of Ahmedabad and the outskirts of ahmedabad and Gujarat in the year 1999. For the purpose of enhanced sales and wide publicity of its products, the petitioner No. 1 had approached the respondent-plaintiff for advertising the said products through public and dealer wall paintings. The terms and conditions between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent-plaintiff were settled. The petitioner No. 1 has paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- initially to the respondent-plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff has accordingly carried out the contract work at various places/walls/ sites.

( 3 ) THE respondent-plaintiff thereafter raised on the petitioner Nos. 1, 23 invoices, for a total sum of Rs. 3,51,676/ -. The first invoice was dated 30. 08. 1999 and the last invoice was dated 17. 09. 1999. Under the said invoices, 18% interest was chargeable on amounts remaining unpaid after due date, legal proceeding by or against was required to be instituted in Ahmedabad only and the payments were required to be made within five days. The petitioner No. 1 has paid a further amount of Rs. 85,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff on 1. 11. 1999 and thus, according to the respondent-plaintiff, a total sum of Rs. 1 Lac was paid by the petitioner no. 1 to the respondent-plaintiff.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioners-defendants that the respondent-plaintiff addressed a letter dated 12. 02. 2000 wherein the respondent-plaintiff has admitted that the respondent-plaintiff has done more work than was agreed between the parties. The said letter dated 12. 02. 2000 clearly admits that the additional work done was of 50,000 Sq. Ft. (the value of which would be approximately Rs. 2 Lacs, because the alleged agreed rate was Rs. 4 per Sq. Ft. of wall painting ). However, the said letter dated 12. 02. 2000 together with its enclosures were not produced and/or referred to by the respondent-plaintiff in the suit. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff issued a notice dated 30. 06. 2000 to the petitioner No. l at Mumbai through its Advocate and called upon the petitioner No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,51,676/- within seven days from the date of receipt thereof. Thereafter the petitioner No. 1 through its advocate issued a reply dated 06. 07. 2000 to the said notice dated 30. 06. 2000 and denied the contents of the said notice and also called upon the respondent-plaintiff to supply to the petitioner No. 1 and/or its advocate the copy of the Contract referred to in the said notice dated 30. 06. 2000. The respondent-plaintiff did not respond. All the three letters have not been referred to in the plaint and/or produced along with the plaint.

( 5 ) IT is also the case of the