Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: MHCC010053432019 Presented on 30/05/2019
Registered on 30/05/2019
Decided on 16/02/2026
Duration 06Y: 08M: 17D
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON, MUMBAI
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 176 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 524 OF 2018
1. Vijay Pandurang Narkar, Age 71 years ]
2. Kranti Amol Narkar, Age 39 year ]
Both of Mumbai an adult Indian inhabitant ]
Having their address at Shop No.02, ]
Girkar House, K. K. Marg, Satrasta, ]
Mumbai-400 027. ]…Plaintiffs
VERSUS ]
Suresh Laxman Gorivale ]
of Mumbai an adult Indian inhabitant ]
having his address at Mumbai Central Depo, ]
Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central Mumbai 400 008 ]
And residing at C/69, Best Kamgar Vasahat ]
Dr. S. S. Road, Parel Mumbai-400 012 ]...Defendant
Appearance :-
Ld. Adv. Madhuri Shirke h/f. Adv. Ramesh Jain for plaintiffs.
Ld. Adv. Nikhil Mallelwar for defendant.
CORAM : HHJ SHRI SANGRAM SHRIHARI SHINDE
C. R. NO.: 81
DATE : 16/02/2026
-- 1 of 9 --
2 SJ No. 176/2019 IN
Sum Su No.524/18
ORDER
( Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
01] The plaintiffs have filed this Summons for Judgment
against defendant on 01/03/2019. Defendant filed reply to the
Summons for Judgment and resisted it and prayed for unconditional
leave to defend the suit.
Brief facts of plaintiff’s case may be summarized as under:-
02] As per the plaintiffs, they are engaged in the business of
money lending. The defendant is working for gain and residing at
address mentioned in the title cause. plaintiffs had advanced an
amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the defendant on 07/04/2016. Defendant
executed demand promissory note in favour of plaintiffs on
07/04/2016 and agreed to repay the same at the rate of 18% p.a.
Defendant failed to repay said amount with interest therefore, the
plaintiffs issued notice dated 20/03/2018 and called upon defendant
to make the payment of outstanding amount. It is the contention of the
plaintiffs that they are entitled for an amount of Rs. 6,77,041.09ps.
along with interest. It is further submitted that the only defence of the
defendant was that promissory note does not bear his signature.
Further, at the instance of defendant promissory note was sent to
Handwriting Expert for his expert opinion. The Handwriting Expert has
sent report and opined that signature at Ex.Q-2 is of the defendant.
Therefore, the defendant has not raised substantial defence or raised
any triable issue. On the contrary, execution of promissory note is an
admission of liability. Therefore, defendant is not entitled for leave to
defend the suit. Hence, Summons for Judgment may be allowed.
03] On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the defendant
that he has never approached the plaintiffs and never borrowed loan of
Rs.5,00,000/- on 07/04/2016. Further, defendant has never executed
-- 2 of 9 --
3 SJ No. 176/2019 IN
Sum Su No.524/18
promissory note as alleged by the plaintiffs. The said promissory note
is forged and it does not bear the signature of the defendant. The
defendant had filed Notice of Motion No. 1057/2023 to seek opinion
of Handwriting Expert with respect to the signature on the promissory
note dated 07/04/2016. The Handwriting Expert opined that due to
absence of sufficient identifying characteristics for comparison, it has
not been made possible to express any definite opinion regarding
authorship of the encircled signature. Thus, it cannot be said that
promissory note bears the signature of defendant. Further, the
defendant has raised issue of money lending and plaintiffs are not
having valid Money Lending License. Therefore, this Court has no
jurisdiction to decide the suit. Thus, the defendant has raised
substantial defence of forgery of promissory note as well as plaintiffs
validity about money lending. The defendant had made complaint to
the Kala Chowky police station on 11/08/2018 against the plaintiffs in
respect of forged and fabricated promissory note however, concerned
police has not taken any action against plaintiffs. Thereafter, the
defendant sent letter dated 28/11/2018 to said police station. Thus, as
the defendant has raised substantial defence that alleged promissory
note is forged as it does not bear signature of the defendant. Further,
suit is bad for non-joinder of parties, plaintiffs are not having money
lending license and as promissory note is not admitted suit is not
maintainable under Order 37, Rule 2 of C.P.C. are triable issues. It
requires evidence and has to be adjudicated. Therefore, defendant is
entitled for unconditional leave to defend the suit. Hence, Summons
for Judgment may be dismissed with costs.
04] Perused Summons for Judgment, reply of the defendant
and record. Heard both parties. As per plaintiffs, they have advanced
-- 3 of 9 --
4 SJ No. 176/2019 IN
Sum Su No.524/18
an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 07/04/2016 to the defendant. Further,
the defendant has executed promissory note on 07/04/2016. The
plaintiffs have filed original promissory note vide List Exh.6/1. On
perusing said promissory note, it appears that, it bears signature and
thumb impression of the defendant. It is pertinent to note that the
defendant has denied execution of said promissory note. Therefore, the
said promissory note was sent to Handwriting Expert for his expert
opinion vide order dated 12/04/2024 passed on Notice of Motion
No. 1057/2023 taken out by the defendant. Further, alongwith said
promissory note admitted, disputed and specimen signatures of the
defendant were sent to Handwriting Expert. The Handwriting Expert
after examination and verification as well as comparison of said
signatures has given his expert opinion. The said opinion is at Exh. 8. It
is opined by the Handwriting Expert that '
encircled signature as Ex. Q2
on promissory note is written by the writer who wrote signatures Ex.
S-1 to S-6 and N-1. It is pertinent to note that signatures Ex. S-1 to S-6
are specimen signatures of the defendant and Ex. N-1 is admitted
signature on vakalatnama of the defendant'. Thus, it can be said that
signature of the defendant is proved to the extent of encircled as Ex.Q-
2 on promissory note.
05] There are two signatures on promissory note and it is
encircled as Ex.Q-1 and Q-2. The other signature is marked as Ex. Q-1.
It is opined by the Handwriting Expert with respect of Exh.Q-1 that, '
in
absence of sufficient identifying characteristics for comparison, it has
not been made possible to express any definite opinion regarding
authorship of the encircled signature marked by me as Ex.Q-1 when
compared with signature Exs.S-1 to S-6 and N-1'. Thus, it appears that
one of the signature on promissory note encircled signature as Ex.Q-2
-- 4 of 9 --
5 SJ No. 176/2019 IN
Sum Su No.524/18
on promissory note is that of the defendant. It is pertinent to note that
the defendant has not brought any other material on record to show
that the defendant has not signed said promissory note except his bare
contention. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the
defendant that promissory note does not bear his signature.
06] Further, on perusing promissory note, it appears that it
bears thumb impression and signature of the defendant. Further, it
appears that the defendant had borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and
agreed to repay said amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
Further, the plaintiffs to prove that he had lent an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant on 07/04/2016 has filed verified copy
of Form No.8 vide at Exh.10/3.
07] It is also defence of the defendant that as promissory note
is not admitted therefore, summary suit is not maintainable under
Order 37, Rule 2 of C.P.C. It is pertinent to note that the defendant has
raised objection with respect to execution of promissory note and
disputed his signature thereon. However, as discussed above, the
Handwriting Expert has opined that signature encircled as Ex. Q-2 on
promissory note is that of the defendant. Therefore, I am of the view
that there is no substance in the contention of the defendant that
summary suit is not maintainable under Order 37, Rule 2 of C.P.C.
08] Further, it is the defence of the defendant that the
plaintiffs are not having valid money lending license. The plaintiffs
have pleaded that he is doing money lending business and has valid
money lending license. The plaintiffs have filed verified copy of money
lending licence on record vide list Exh. 10/2. On perusing said license,
it appears that plaintiffs are authorized money lender and said license
is valid from 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017. Therefore, there is no
-- 5 of 9 --
6 SJ No. 176/2019 IN
Sum Su No.524/18
substance in the said contention of the defendant.
09] Further, plaintiffs to prove that he had lent an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant on 07/04/2016 has filed verified copy
of Form No.8 vide at Exh.10/3. Further, the plaintiffs have contended
that the defendant has dishonored the promissory note. Therefore, he
issued demand notice dated 20/03/2018 to the defendant and called
upon him to pay principal amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
plaintiffs have filed original courier receipt alongwith returned sealed
envelope on record filed on record vide list Exh.10/1. It is the
contention of the defendant that he had replied to said notice on
23/03/2018 and denied that the defendant had borrowed loan from
the plaintiffs and executed promissory note. It is pertinent to note that
though, the defendant has raised objection in his reply however, as
discussed above, encircled signature as Ex. Q-2 on promissory note is
that of the defendant. Therefore, there is no substance in in his said
contention.
10] The defendant has also raised defence of non-joiner of
necessary party. However, it is not contended as to who is necessary
party in the suit. Therefore, there is no substance in the said
contention of the defendant. Further, it is the contention of the
defendant that he had made complaint to the Kala Chowky police
station on 11/08/2018 against the plaintiffs in respect of forged and
fabricated promissory note. Further, he had also written letter dated
28/11/2018 to said police station to take cognizance. The defendant
has filed photocopies of said complaint on record as Exh. A with leave
to defend the suit. However, the defendant has not filed office copies of
the same. It is settled law as laid down in Neebha Kapoor Vs. Jayantilal
Khandwala and others, AIR 2008 SC 1117, that parties has to file
-- 6 of 9 --
7 SJ No. 176/2019 IN
Sum Su No.524/18
either original or office copy on record at the time of hearing on
Summons for Judgment. Therefore, photocopies filed by the defendant
cannot be considered at this stage.
11] Thus, I am of the view that plaintiffs have proved that she
had advanced an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant and
defendant had executed promissory note to repay said loan with
interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Further, plaintiffs have also filed
verified copy of extract of account vide list Exh.10/4. Therefore, the
defendant is liable to pay outstanding amount along with interest at
the rate of 18% p.a. till date of filing suit. The defendant has failed to
raise any substantial defence or triable issues and therefore, he is not
entitled for leave to defend the suit. Therefore, the plaintiffs are
entitled for an amount of Rs. 6,77,041/- including interest.
12] So far as, further interest is concerned plaintiffs have
claimed interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the basis of promissory
note. However, I am of the view that the same is excessive as compared
to rate of interest of nationalized banks. Therefore, having regard to
the provisions of section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, I am of the
view that granting the further interest at the rate of 7% per annum on
the principal amount from the date of filing of suit would be just,
proper and reasonable. Hence, I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to
interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on the principal amount, from the date
of filing the suit till its full realization. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
1) Summons for Judgment No.176/2019 in Summary Suit No.
524/2018 is allowed.
-- 7 of 9 --
8 SJ No. 176/2019 IN
Sum Su No.524/18
2) The Summary Suit No. 524/2018 is hereby decreed with costs.
3) The defendant shall pay an amount of Rs. 6,77,041/- (Rupees
Six Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Forty One only) to the
plaintiffs.
4) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs simple interest on
Rs. 5,00,000/- at the rate of 7% p.a. from 28/03/2018, the date
of filing of suit till its full realization.
5) The plaintiffs are entitled to get refund of the court-fees
provided for, if any as per Rules.
6) The decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Sangram S. Shinde)
Adhoc Judge,
City Civil Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai.
C.R.No.81
Date- 16/02/2026
Dictated on : 16/02/2026
Corrected & signed on : 17/02/2026
-- 8 of 9 --
9 SJ No. 176/2019 IN
Sum Su No.524/18
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
20/02/2026 Mrs. V. V. Malgaonkar
Name of the Judge
(with Court Room No.)
Shri. Sangram S. Shinde
C.R. No.81
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/
ORDER
16/02/2026
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O. on 17/02/2026
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 20/02/2026
-- 9 of 9 --