1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

SUMMARY SUIT NO.2156 OF 2009

Bank of India

.. Plaintiff

Versus

Laxmikant J. Dhotre & Anr.

.. Defendants

Mr.J.Girish Nair for plaintiff.

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

DATE : December 18, 2009.

P.C.:

1]

The suit is by a bank against both, the borrower and guarantor. The

borrower has executed a demand promisory note whereas the guarantor

has signed and executed the deed of guarantee. All this was in pursuance

of a written application for loan and on the terms and conditions being

agreed.

2]

In the light of the default committed by the defendants that a

demand notice was issued to both borrower and guarantor and ultimately

this suit is filed. From a reading of the averments in the plaint, I am

satisfied that the claim is maintainable under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C.

2

From a perusal of the original documents I am further satisfied that the

plaintiff can recover a sum of Rs.1,36,401/- as per the particulars of

claim.

3]

From the uncontroverted averments and more particularly in paras

15 and 16 of the plaint and finding that the claim is within limitation, I

take the original documents on record. The same are marked as “X” for

identification. Affidavit proving service is also taken on record and

marked “X-1”.

4]

The defendants have failed to appear before the Court despite

receipt of writ of summons. In terms of legal provisions the plaintiff is

entitled to a judgement and decree in its favour. Therefore, the suit is

decreed in terms of the prayers in the plaint. Decree be drawn up

accordingly. Advocates’ Cost to be computed as per rules. Refund of

court fees, if permissible, as per rules.

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)