Aggrieved, the appellant took out a Notice of Motion bearing number503 of 2004 in the said suit for setting aside ex parte decree dated 12.11.2003, however, it stood rejected vide order dated 10.12.2004 holding it to be number maintainable in view of division bench judgment of the Bombay High Court wherein it had been held that any decree passed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC companyld number be subjected to the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
The High Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2003 under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, hereinafter referred to as CPC without companysidering any issue involved therein or taking numbere of the pleadings in the plaint itself.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.6.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, passed in Appeal No.478 of 2005 in Notice of Motion No.503 of 2004 in Suit No.1924 of 1988.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal which has been dismissed vide order dated 22.6.2005 companycurring with the learned Single Judge.
Respondent number1 filed Suit No.1924 of 1988 on 2.6.1988 against the appellant as well as the banker for recovery of sum of Rs.5,66,000/ alongwith interest.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are That the appellant had purchased five Tata Diesel Vehicles from the respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.9,58,913/ which was to be paid in 8 installments through respondent No.2 as per repayment schedule.
We have heard Shri Prasenjit Keswani, learned companynsel for the appellant and Shri Debmalaya Banerjee, learned companynsel for respondent number1 and perused the record.
The appellant alleges that eight Bills of Exchange were drawn by the respondent number1 upon the respondent number2 banker of the appellant and by way of which the entire amount was paid.
However, subsequently under the impression that the entire amount had already been paid, he did number file the written statement.
Summons were served upon the appellant and he entered appearance through advocate to companytest the suit.
Hence, this appeal.
