1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

SUIT NO.57 OF 1984

Bank of Maharashtra

.. Plaintiff

Versus

M/s.Attempt Engineering & Ors. .. Defendants

WITH

SUIT NO.58 OF 1984

Bank of Maharashtra

.. Plaintiff

Versus

M/s.Attempt Engineering & Ors. .. Defendants.

Mr.Sunil

Shewale

i/b.

Ghanekar

&

Co.

for

plaintiff

None for defendants.

2

CORAM :

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

DATE

:

4th December 2008

P.C.

.

In this suit after the plaint and written

statement were perused, issues were framed on

23rd February 2006 and directions were given for

filing of affidavit of documents.

2.

It is clear from the order passed by me

on 10th November 2008 that at the stage of

framing of issues defendants were represented by

an Advocate.

3.

Subsequently, when the affidavit of

documents and originals along with compilation

were to be filed so also affidavit in lieu of

examination in chief, the defendants were not

present and even their Advocate was not

available. In such circumstances, I have

3

reecorded in my earleir orders that plaintiffs’

Advocate served a copy of affidavit of documents

and examination in chief on the defendants.

There is an acknowledgement evidencing receipt of

these documents. I have recorded that the

defendants and their Advocates have remained

absent and did not avail of the opportunity to

cross examine plaintiffs’ witness. It is in such

circumstances, that I placed the matter for

passing of ex parte decree on 26th November 2008

and 3rd December 2008. None appears for the

defendants nor are their Advocates present,

although their name appears on board.

4.

These are Bank suits wherein the bank is

seeking to recover amounts under certain

facilities which have been extended by the

plaintiff bank to the defendants. Defendants in

the respective suits are either principal debtors

and guarantors or were the constituents of

plaintiffs and they were extended certain credit

4

facilities as set out in the respective plaints.

In October 1972, they applied for the loan which

was granted and the facility was

continued/extended. There was an agreement to

pay interest. There also was an execution of

promisory note in favour of the plaintiffs. The

sums became due and payable after the period for

which the facility was extended expired. There

was a demand made on the defendants but they

failed to comply therewith.

5.

There is a letter of confirmation,

confirming the debt and acknowledging the

liability. The notice of demand was issued prior

to the institution of suit and since there was no

compliance with the requisitions contained

therein, the suit has been filed.

6.

Mr.Vijay Krishna Patne, an officer of the

concerned branch of Plaintiff has filed an

affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and has

5

confirmed the averments in the plaint. He has

specifically confirmed the execution of the

demand promisory note, letters of confirmation as

are set out in the plaint. He also has stated

that these documents were executed after the

facilities were extended during the ordinary and

regular course of business. The original

application for loan, original promisory note and

the letters of confirmation are produced by him.

He has stated that the contents of the documents

were read over and after perusing and

understanding the same, the defendants have put

their signatures. He has also stated that the

Account with regard to the concerned loan is

prepared and the figures therein are taken from

the books which are maintained during the

ordinary and regular co