Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: MHCC010079952019 Presented on 02/08/2019
Registered on 02/08/2019
Decided on 29/08/2025
Duration 6 years 27 days
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON, MUMBAI
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 211 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 507 OF 2018
Baban Devaji Jankar ]
Aged 55 years, of Mumbai an adult ]
Indian Inhabitant carrying on business of ]
Money lending, at and form Vijay Niwas, ]
Jivdaya Lane, LBS Marg Ghatkopar (west), ]
Mumbai 400086. ]...Plaintiff
VERSUS ]
Panidevi Madanlal Bafna @ Jain ]
Age not known of Mumbai an adult ]
Indian Inhabitant having address at ]
M. S. Jewellers Shop No. 14 Giri Vihar, ]
Jivdaya Lane, Ghatkopar West, And ]
residing at 19-2A Girivihar Bldg., Jivdaya ]
Lane, Ghatkopar, Mumbai-400086. ]...Defendant
Appearance:-
Ld. Adv. Ramesh Jain for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Shamika D. Pawar with Adv. Robin Thomas for defendant.
CORAM : HHJ SHRI SANGRAM SHRIHARI SHINDE
C. R. NO. : 81
DATE : 29/08/2025.
-- 1 of 6 --
2 SJ No.211/2019 in
Sum SU No.507/2018
ORDER
( Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
01] The plaintiff has filed this summons for judgment against
defendant on 25/07/2019. Defendant filed reply to the summons for
judgment and prayed for unconditional leave to defend the suit.
02] As per the plaintiff, he is engaged in the business of money
lending. The defendant is mother and legal heir and legal representative
of the person reported to be in charge and control of the estate of late
Mukesh Madanlal Bafna (in short deceased). Plaintiff had advanced an
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to deceased Mukesh Madanlal Bafna on
15/07/2017. Defendant and deceased executed demand promissory
note in favour of plaintiff on 15/07/2017 and agreed to repay the same
at the rate of 18% p.a. Deceased and defendant failed to repay said
amount with interest however, after repeated demand to discharge their
liability deceased issued post dated cheque bearing No.743314, dated
25/12/2017 in favour of plaintiff for sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The said
cheque when presented was dishnoured on 05/02/2018 with remark,
“REKYC A WAIT PRESENT AGAIN ”. The plaintiff came to know expiry
of Mukesh Madanlal Bafna. The plaintiff issued notice dated
15/02/2018 and called upon defendant to make the payment of said
cheque as she is only legal heir of deceased. It is the contention of the
plaintiff that he is entitled for an amount of Rs. 3,35,358.90 ps. along
with interest. It is further submitted that defendant has no defence and
not raised any substantial defence or any triable issue. 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 submitted by the defendant that
she is the mother of deceased Madanlal Bafna who expired on
-- 2 of 6 --
3 SJ No.211/2019 in
Sum SU No.507/2018
14/12/2017. The husband of the defendant expired on 1998 and she
has one son and three daughters and all are married. Further, deceased
was alcoholic and was not residing with defendant. Defendant is not
concerned with the suit transaction and the promissory note does not
bear her signature or thumb impression of defendant. The said
promissory note is fabricated and false. The deceased had borrowed
alleged loan. Further, defendant is neither legal heir or legal
representative of deceased nor received any estate from defendant. The
alleged cheque was given as security by the deceased and it is also
doubtful as cheque is dated after the demise of deceased. Plaintiff had
not intimated before depositing the said cheque. It is further submitted
that she has not received any demand notice from the plaintiff. Further,
she is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Further, plaintiff has
filed suit without cause of action against the defendant. The plaintiff
has contended that he is money lender however, he has not complied
with the provisions of Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulations) Act. It
is submitted that she has raised substantial defence that she has not
borrowed alleged loan from the plaintiff. Therefore, she 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 plaintiff, he has advanced an amount
of Rs.3,00,000/- on 15/07/2017 to the defendant and deceased
Mukesh Madanlal Bafna. Further, they executed promissory note on
15/07/2017. The plaintiff has filed original promissory note vide List
Exh. 8/1. On perusing said promissory note, it appears it bears
signature of deceased Mukesh Madanlal Bafna. Further, it also bears
name of defendant however, it is the contention of defendant that it is
-- 3 of 6 --
4 SJ No.211/2019 in
Sum SU No.507/2018
signature of defendant. The defendant has specifically contended that
she has never signed on said promissory note. Further, it is the
contention of the defendant that she was not residing with deceased
and not aware about transaction. It is pertinent to note that it also bears
thumb impression however, plaintiff has not pleaded whose thumb
impression it is.
05] It is the contention of the plaintiff that Mukesh Madanlal
Bafna is expired. However, plaintiff has not pleaded as to when said
Mukesh M. Bafna is expired. It is not disputed that defendant is mother
of Mukesh Bafna. As per defendant deceased expired on 14/12/2017. It
is the contention of the plaintiff that deceased had given post dated
cheque bearing No.743314 dated 25/12/2017 in favour of plaintiff for
sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Further, said cheque was dishonoured. The
plaintiff has filed said original cheque alongwith cheque return memo
on record vide list Exh. 8/2. However, it is not pleaded as to when said
cheque was issued by the deceased.
06] It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is a money
lender and having valid Money Lending License. Plaintiff has filed
photocopy of Money Lending License vide List Exh.8/4. It is not original
Money Lending License and therefore, it cannot be considered at this
stage. It is settled law that original documents are required to be filed at
the time of hearing on summons for judgment as laid down in Neebha
Kapoor Vs. Jayantilal Khandwala and others, AIR 2008 SC 1117
wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, '
at the time of hearing
summons for judgment, plaintiff has to file original documents.' Further,
unless plaintiff shows that he has valid Money Lending License suit for
recovery is not maintainable.
-- 4 of 6 --
5 SJ No.211/2019 in
Sum SU No.507/2018
07] Further, though plaintiff has pleaded that defendant has
inherited property of the deceased however, plaintiff has not pleaded
details of deceased property. Thus, it appears that there are triable
issues i.e. whether plaintiff is having valid Money Lending License and
whether defendant is liable to pay amount as claimed by the plaintiff
along with interest. Therefore, I am of the view that defendant is
entitled for unconditional leave to defend the suit. Hence, I proceed to
pass following order.
ORDER
1) Summons for judgment No.211/2019 in Summary Suit
No. 507/2018 is disposed off as follows:
(a) Defendant is granted unconditional Leave to
defend the suit and defendant is at liberty to file
written statement on or before next date.
2) Summons for judgment No.211/2019 is disposed off accordingly.
(Sangram S. Shinde)
Adhoc Judge,
City Civil Court Mazgaon, Mumbai.
Date: 29/08/2025
Dictated on : 29/08/2025
Corrected & signed on : 03/09/2025
-- 5 of 6 --
6 SJ No.211/2019 in
Sum SU No.507/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
04/09/2025 Mrs. V. V. Malgaonkar
Name of the Judge
(with Court Room No.)
Shri S. S. Shinde
C.R. No.81
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/
ORDER 29/08/2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O. on 03/09/2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 04/09/2025
-- 6 of 6 --