Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: MHCC010040812018
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.109 OF 2018
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1120 OF 2017
Sunita Anand Shinde
...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Rajesh Hanumanta Kunchikrve.
....Defendant.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Patil for Plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mr. G.C. Vishwakarma for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 1st December, 2022
ORDER
1. The present Summons for Judgment is taken out by the
plaintiff for issuing Summons for Judgment. It was submitted by the
plaintiff that she lent and advanced a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ (Rs. Four
Lakhs only) to the defendant on 20.08.2015 with interest at the rate of
-- 1 of 4 --
SJ 109 of 2018 .. J/2 .. in Suit 1120 of 2017
18% per annum. The defendant executed Demand Promissory Note.
The defendant failed to pay the same on demand. The plaintiff
therefore, filed the present suit and had taken out the Summons for
Judgment. It was submitted that there is no defence available to the
defendant and he had filed his appearance only to defeat and delay to
claim of plaintiff and therefore, Summons for Judgment be made
absolute.
2. The defendant filed reply to the Summons for Judgment
and stated that he had taken a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ as a loan. He
repaid the loan by selling his property. He had paid the loan to the
plaintiff and therefore the documents filed by the plaintiff are forged.
The defendant is having sufficient ground to defend his case and
therefore, permission be granted to defend himself by granting leave to
defend.
3. Heard Learned Advocate for plaintiff. Perused the written
notes of arguments on behalf of the defendant. The contents are not
reproduced. The defendant admitted that he had taken loan from the
plaintiff. However, quantum of loan is disputed. As per the plaintiff,
she advanced a loan of Rs.4,00,000/ to defendant. However, the
defendant stated that he had taken a loan only of Rs.1,50,000/. The
contention of the defendant has to be proved on merits. In order to
provide an opportunity to the defendant to defend himself, it is
necessary to grant permission to leave to defend. The defendant has
raised substantial defence. If the defendant is not granted an
opportunity to defend himself, he will suffer irreparable loss whereas no
such prejudice will cause to the plaintiff. Since the defendant admitted
the loan to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/ it would be appropriate to grant
-- 2 of 4 --
SJ 109 of 2018 .. J/3 .. in Suit 1120 of 2017
conditional leave to defendant to defend the suit. I, therefore, proceed
to pass the following order:
ORDER
1.
1. Conditional leave is granted to defendant to defend the suit.
2. The defendant shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ to be
paid to the plaintiff within 2 months from date of this order.
3. The defendant after payment of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/ will
be at liberty to file written statement on record.
4. The Summons for Judgment No.109 of 2018 is disposed off
accordingly.
5. Parties to bear their own costs.
6.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 01122022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 01122022
Transcribed on : 01122022
checked on : 01122022
Signed on : 01122022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 3 of 4 --
SJ 109 of 2018 .. J/4 .. in Suit 1120 of 2017
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
01.12.2022 at 04.15 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Smt.R.K.Kshirsagar
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
01.12.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 01.12.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 01.12.2022
-- 4 of 4 --