Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Order in SJ 168/19 in Summary Suit 67/19
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 168 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 67 OF 2019
CNR NO. : MHCC010052952019
Smt. Champa Wd/o. Shyamnarayan Singh & Ors. …. Plaintiffs
V/s.
Dr. Ramesh Chauhan …. Defendant
Appearance:
Shri. S.R. Gupta Advocate for the plaintiffs.
None for defendant.
CORAM : SMT. S.S. NAGUR,
JUDGE, (C.R.NO.04)
DATE : 01.12.2021
ORAL ORDER
(Dictated in open Court)
The Summons for Judgment is filed by the plaintiffs to
decree the suit on the ground that the claim for recovery of amount is
admitted by the defendant. The Summons for Judgment is supported by
Affidavit of Smt. Champa Wd/o Shyamnarayan Singh. The plaintiffs
stated that they have filed the Summary Suit against the defendant for
recovery of Rs. 2,35,506.83/ along with interest at the rate of 24% per
annum till its realization. The plaintiff has adopted the contents of the
plaint to the Summons for Judgment.
...1/
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Order in SJ 168/19 in Summary Suit 67/19
2. The plaintiff has come with a case that the defendant
requested Shri. Shyam Narayan alias Narain Anirudha alias Anrudh
Singh for financial help. The defendant failed to pay the amount. He
has issued cheques to deceased Shyam Narayan alias Narain Anirudha
alias Anrudh Singh. Those cheques were dishonoured. Due to death of
Shyam Narayan alias Narain Anirudha alias Anrudh Singh, they could
not proceed against the defendant for filling criminal complaint under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the suit by the legal
heirs of deceased Shyam Narayan alias Narain Anirudha alias Anrudh
Singh.
3. The defendant filed leave to defend and has denied the
contents of the plaint in toto. The defendant has come with a defence
that he has asked friendly loan of Rs.1,00,000/ from Shyam Narayan
alias Narain Anirudha alias Anrudh Singh, who was teacher and has
guided the defendant. Their relationship with each other was very good
and he was helping the defendant that was not accepted by the family
of the deceased Shyam Narayan alias Narain Anirudha alias Anrudh
Singh i.e. the plaintiff. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/ was paid by the
defendant to the deceased Shyam Narayan alias Narain Anirudha alias
Anrudh Singh.
4. The defendant was in need of money. Therefore, deceased
Shyam Narayan alias Narain Anirudha alias Anrudh Singh has advanced
amount of Rs.2,00,000/ as a friendly loan. The defendant issued five
cheques as security. The deceased Shyam Narayan alias Narain
Anirudha alias Anrudh Singhwas was not keeping well therefore, the
...2/
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Order in SJ 168/19 in Summary Suit 67/19
defendant has repaid the friendly loan of Rs.2,00,000/ and has cleared
all the liabilities. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence,
prayed to grant unconditional leave to defend.
5. Heard Advocate Shri.S.R. Gupta for the plaintiffs. The
defendant remained absent. Hence, the argument of the defendant is
not heard. I have gone through the contents of Summons for Judgment
supported by Affidavit and the Affidavit of the defendant for grant of
leave to defend the suit.
6. On perusal of the contents of leave to defend, the
defendant is not denying that a friendly loan of Rs.2,00,000/ was given
to him by deceased Shyam Narayan alias Narain Anirudha alias Anrudh
Singhwas. The defendant is not denying that five cheuqes bearing no.
000137, 000138, 000139, 000140 and 000141 were issued by him to
the deceased Shyam Narayan alias Narain Anirudha alias Anrudh
Singhwas. The defence is that it was for security. The defendant stated
that he has arranged the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ when deceased was
suffering from illness. The contention of the defendant is without any
proof to that respect. On the contrary, the plaintiffs have relied on the
four cheques dishonoured, when it was presented. The demand notice
was issued to the defendant by deceased Shyam Narayan alias Narain
Anirudha alias Anrudh Singhwas on 09.11.2017 through his Advocate.
The contention of the defendant is that the said notice is not received by
him. Shri. Shyam Narayan alias Narain Anirudha alias Anrudh Singhwas
expired on 19.12.2017.
...3/
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Order in SJ 168/19 in Summary Suit 67/19
7. Considering the above facts, the claim of the defendant for
unconditional leave to defend cannot be accepted. The defendant in the
leave to defend stated that by profession he is a Doctor. There is
nothing on record produced by the defendant to show that the amount
of Rs.2,00,000/ was paid by him to deceased Shyam Narayan alias
Narain Anirudha alias Anrudh Singhwas, when he was ill. The amount
of Rs.2,00,000/ is not small amount and it is the defendant who has
from time to time requested the deceased Shyam Narayan alias Narain
Anirudha alias Anrudh Singhwas for monetary help as a friendly loan.
The defendant can be granted leave to defend, but on condition of
deposit of Rs.2,00,000/ in the Court. Hence, pass following order:
ORDER
1. Conditional leave is granted to the defendant to defend
the suit on deposit of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rs.Two Lakh
Only) on or before next date.
2. On payment of the above cost within the above period,
the defendant to file Written Statement within one
month.
3. Accordingly, the Summons for Judgment is disposed of.
(SMT.S.S.Nagur)
Date :01/12/2021 Judge
City Civil Court,
Greater Mumbai.
Pronounced on : 01.12.2021
Dictated on : 01.12.2021
Transcribed on : 04.12.2021
Checked & Signed on : 06.12.2021
...4/
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Order in SJ 168/19 in Summary Suit 67/19
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
07/12/2021 11.15 a.m. Prachi Y. Potdar
Stenographer – Grade I
Name of the Judge HHJ Smt. S.S. Nagur
(C.R.NO.4)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
01/12/2021
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 06/12/2021
Judgment/order uploaded on 07/12/2021
...5/
-- 5 of 5 --