Order 1

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 Summ. Suit No.640/2017
Filed on : 11.04.2017
Registered on : 09.06.2017
Decided on : 06.03.2020.
Duration : Year-02 Month-10 Days-26
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 134 OF 2018
IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 640 OF 2017
(CNR NO.MHCC01-003947-2017)
Malti Laxman Bhuwad
Age: 48 years
Address - 608, 6th Floor,
Panchsheel C.H.S. Bldg. No. 3,
Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli,
Mumbai - 12 ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Geeta Manohar Ganachari
Age: 45 years
Address - Room NO. 203,
2nd Floor, Panchashil Society,
Bldg. No. 1, Worli Bhim Nagar,
G south Worli,
Mumbai – 12 ...Defendant
Appearance:-
Advocate, S.S.Redekar for the plaintiff.
Advocate, Kishor Mhatre for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. S.G. SHAIKH.
(C.R. NO.59).
DATE : 06th March, 2020.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in Open Court.)
1. The plaintiff has brought this Summons for Judgment and thereby
directing the defendant to pay amount of Rs.12,90,000/- with interest @ 12%
per annum from the date of the suit till its realization.
-- 1 of 4 --
Judgment 2 Summ. Suit No.640/2017
2. Perused the documents on record. Heard advocates of the plaintiff at
the length.
3. The defendant appeared on Summons for Judgment and filed there
respective reply/leave to defend within limitation.
4. The defendant has to prayed for leave to defend on the following
reasons mainly :
i. That she never agreed to sale Room No.203, 2nd Floor, Panchashil
Society at Worli, Mumbai-18 and she has never received any
amount from the plaintiff towards part consideration or under any
other transaction. The said flat is purchased by her son on
03.06.2016.
ii. That the transaction is outcome of chit fund.
iii. That the plaintiff has obtained the signatures on blank papers of
the defendant under the pretext of Loan
iii. That any document does not bear the signature of the defendant
and plaintiff has committed forgery.
5. It appear from the reply of the defendant that she has made allegation
regarding playing fraud by the plaintiff and obtaining her signatures on blank
papers under the pretext of Loan and misuse the same documents. It is
further alleged by the defendant that this transaction is out come of chit fund
Therefore it is held that defence of forgery and fraud played by the plaintiff by
misusing the documents is a plausible defence and triable issue which goes to
the root of the matter.
6. The question as to whether commission of forgery, playing of fraud by
the plaintiff on defendant and misusing the document signed by the plaintiff
are the issues to be decided one evidence and held to be plausible defence
and triable issues.
7. This Court neither intend to comment on the merits of the case as this
is not the stage of appreciation of evidence. It becomes necessary to generally
-- 2 of 4 --
Judgment 3 Summ. Suit No.640/2017
asses this case on the basis of documents on the test of basis laws. It is also
necessary to adjudicate the case on the basis of evidence as to find out as to
whether defendant are liable to pay the amount of Rs.18,90,000/- to the
plaintiff. The defendant has not denied or disputed his signature on the
agreement and promissory note.
8. In the opinion of this court, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery
of amount as claimed from the defendant is the triable issue in this suit and
this issue can not be brushed aside on the procedure of summary suit.
9. In this background, it is held that defendant have made out a case to
allow him leave to defend this suit. Defendant has plausible defence. The
defendant should be allowed conditional leave to defend and However, if the
defendant fails to prove the defence, it will have to pay the amount claimed to
the plaintiff, Therefore, in order to curtail the possibility of any relief from
defendant's side, this court desire to put the condition on the defendant to
deposit amount of Rs.7,50,000/-. Which is 50% of principal amount of
Rs.15,00,000/-. The said amount shall be deposited by the defendant within
four weeks. In consequence the Summons for Judgment is liable to be
dismissed. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER
1. Summons for Judgment No. 134 of 2018 is dismissed.
2. Defendant is allowed to defend the suit on the condition that
he shall deposit amount of Rs.7,50,000/- and file her written
statement within four weeks from the date of this order.
3. Costs in cause.
4. Summons for Judgment No. 134 of 2018 is disposed off
accordingly.
[
(Smt. S.G. Shaikh)
Date : 06.03.2020 Ad-hoc Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 06.03.2020
Transcribed on : 06.03.2020
Signed on : 06.03.2020
-- 3 of 4 --
Judgment 4 Summ. Suit No.640/2017
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE TIME STENOGRAPHER NAME
(Typist)
06.03.2020 5.00 p.m. Miss. N.T.Kokare
Name of the Judge H.H.J. SABIHA G. SHAIKH.
Ad-hoc Judge.
(Court Room No.59)
Date of pronouncement of Order 06.03.2020
Order signed by P.O. on 06.03.2020
Order uploaded on 06.03.2020
-- 4 of 4 --