Final Order 1

Order Details: Miscellaneous appeal
Pdf Text: SJ 297 of 2019 .. 1/ .. in Suit 1228 of 2017
MHCC010133922019
EXH.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.297 OF 2019
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1228 OF 2017
Shri. Sohanraj L. Khajanchi
Age: 87, Occupation :
R/a: B-11, Kasturchand Mill Compound,
M. C. Jawale Marg, Dadar West,
Mumbai - 400028.
....Plaintiff.
Versus
1.M/s.Veg King Agro Foods Process Pvt. Ltd.
R/a: 1.G. No. 330, Pilanwadi, Takliphata,
Post Rahu, Taluka Daund Dist. Pune 412207.
2.Mr. Pradeep D. Landge
Survey No. 616-2, final Plot No. 101,
Taradutta Park, Pune 412301. ....Defendants
Appearances :
Adv. Vijay Dedhiya For plaintiff.
Adv. Aditya Akhlekar For defendants.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
N. B. LAVTE, (C.R.No.83)
DATED : 12th December, 2025
ORDER
The present Summons for Judgment is filed with prayer to
make it absolute. The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- with further interest of 21% p.a.
-- 1 of 6 --
SJ 297 of 2019 .. 2/ .. in Suit 1228 of 2017
2. In short, it is the case of the plaintiff that;
In the month of May, 2010, he came in contact with defendant
No.2 who introduced himself as director of defendant No.1. After
several business representation, son and grandson of plaintiff were
inducted as directors in defendant No.1 company. The defendant No.2
demanded Rs.25,00,000/- for a locking period of two years and
promised to pay 21% p.a compounding quarterly. In view of the
guarantee and undertaking given by defendant No.2, he advanced
Rs.25,00,000/- vide cheque No.291667 dated 29.12.2008 drawn on
Punjab National Bank. However, the defendant No.2 failed to refund the
amount with interest inspite of several reminders. After various follow
ups on 15.03.2013, Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by cheque.
3. However, the remaining amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was not
paid inspite of repeated demands. Vide mail dated 10.10.2013
defendant agreed to refund Rs.15,00,000/- without interest which
plaintiff agreed. As it was not paid, legal notice was issued on
19.07.2017 which was falsely replied. Hence, suit.
4. The defendant by filing Notice of Motion No.556/2021
prayed for leave to defend on the grounds that the suit is not
maintainable as a Summary Suit under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C as the
essential ingredients are not fulfilled. Therefore, the plaint be returned
as per Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C. The defendant No.1 company is at
Taluka – Daund, Dist. Pune and the entire cause of action took place in
Pune, therefore, this Court is having no territorial jurisdiction to decide
the suit. The son and grandson of plaintiff were directors of defendant
No.1 and were operating the accounts, therefore, defendant No.2 is not
liable for any transactions. The alleged amount is of the year 2008 and
was demanded in the year 2016, therefore, the suit is barred by law of
limitation. The other 5 directors are not made party to the suit;
-- 2 of 6 --
SJ 297 of 2019 .. 3/ .. in Suit 1228 of 2017
therefore, suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff
in connivance with his son and grandson purposely opened account of
company at Dadar. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean
hands. Hence, dismissal of the Summons for Judgment is prayed.
5. The Advocate for plaintiff remained absent since long,
hence, by an order dated 26.08.2025 argument stage of plaintiff was
closed. Heard Adv. Aditya Akhlekar for defendants and gone through
the xerox copies of documents filed on record. According to Adv.
Akhlekar plaintiff’s own pleading shows that the alleged amount was
paid on 29.12.2008, Rs.10,00,000/- were refunded on 15.03.2013 and
the alleged demand notice was issued on 19.07.2017, therefore,
according to him, the suit is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation.
He further submitted that plaintiff’s own pleading shows his son and
grandson were directors of the defendant No.1 company, however, they
are not joined as parties. The court is having no jurisdiction as the
defendant company is at Tal. Daund, Dist. Pune. It was also submitted
that there is no any written contract or liquidated damages, therefore,
the suit is not maintainable as a Summary Suit. They have made out
several triable issues which needs to be considered for adjudication
of dispute, hence, prayed for unconditional leave to defend the suit.
6. The pleadings itself go to show that son and grandson of
plaintiff were inducted as directors in the defendant No.1 Company. The
further pleadings go to show that the alleged amount of Rs.25,00,000/-
was given on 29.12.2008, whereas an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was
returned by defendant on 15.03.2013. The remaining amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- was firstly demanded on 19.07.2017 by way of legal
notice. On this point Adv. Akhlekar had raised the issue of limitation. I
do find force in his submission, because considering the date of
-- 3 of 6 --
SJ 297 of 2019 .. 4/ .. in Suit 1228 of 2017
payment, part payment received and legal demand notice issued, the
issue of limitation would certainly play a deciding role while deciding
the suit. Thus, this is the first and crucial triable issue made out by the
defendants to grant them an unconditional leave to defend the suit.
7. It is material to note that while filing the SJ it is imperative
to file the original documents for the perusal of the Court. However, the
plaintiff failed to file the same. Therefore, they are not available for the
inspection of the Court. The Hon’ble Apex court
Neebha Kapoor vs.
Jayantilal Khandwala, AIR 2008 S.C.1117 held:
For the purpose of obtaining a summary judgment in terms of O.37,
original documents must be produced. Where the original documents
are not available, the plaintiff, is obligated to prove the loss of
documents and only because a suit has been entertained as a
summary suit, the same day itself may not be a ground for passing of
a judgment on mere asking.
8. In view of the preposition of law laid down in the above
referred authority and considering the fact that plaintiff too failed to file
on record the original documents, therefore, I am of the view that it is a
second ground to grant an unconditional leave to defend the suit to
defendants. Thus, I am of the view that the defendants have raised
triable issues which will have to be gone through after the parties will
lead their respective evidence. Hence, the defendants are entitled for an
unconditional leave to defend the suit. In the result, I proceed to pass
the following order:
ORDER
1. The Summons for Judgment No.297 of 2019 is dismissed.
2. The Notice of Motion No.556 of 2021 is allowed and
defendants are granted an unconditional leave to defend the
suit.
3. The defendants are directed to file their written statement within
2 months from the date of this order.
-- 4 of 6 --
SJ 297 of 2019 .. 5/ .. in Suit 1228 of 2017
4. The Summons for Judgment No.297 of 2019 is disposed of
accordingly.
5. The Notice of Motion No.556 of 2021 is disposed of accordingly.
( N. B. Lavte )
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
Dt.:12.12.2025 City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI
Dictated on : 12.12.2025
Transcribed on : 12.12.2025
checked on : 15.12.2025
Signed on : 15.12.2025
( N. B. Lavte )
Judge, (C.R.No.83)
City Civil Court, Mazgaon,
MUMBAI.
-- 5 of 6 --
SJ 297 of 2019 .. 6/ .. in Suit 1228 of 2017
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
15.12.2025 at 05.22 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(MANISHA SRINATH)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Smt.R.K.Kshirsagar
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
12.12.2025
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 15.12.2025
Judgment/order uploaded on 15.12.2025
-- 6 of 6 --