: 1 : SJ-396-08=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.396 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.2026 OF 2008 Ninad A. Lokre & Anr. .. Plaintiffs v/s. Mandar Balchandra Khadye & Ors. .. Defendants ......... Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/by M/s. Lokhandwala & Co. for the plaintiffs Mr. D.A. Athavale for defendant nos. 1 and 2. Mr. B.L. Bonde for defendant no.3. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. Suit is filed on the strength of cheques dated 19th April, 2008 issued by defendant no.1 in favour of plaintiff no.1 for a sum of Rs. 11,26,000/- and Rs.8,74,000/-. Both these cheques have been dishonoured. Defendant no.1 has filed affidavit-in-reply and a reading of the : 2 : SJ-396-08=.sxw affidavit-in-reply would go to show that defendant no.1 is agreeable to pay a sum of Rs.14,26,685/-. 2. It appears that shares of the plaintiffs worth substantial amount i.e. more than Rs.20 lakhs were sold by defendant no.1 at the request of defendant no.3. At one point of time i.e. on 12th April 2005, letter was sent by defendant no.1 to plaintiff no.1 stating that a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was agreed to be paid by way of full and final settlement in regard to the shares owned by plaintiff no.1. It is apparent that two cheques dated 19th April, 2005 were issued in terms of letter dated 12th April, 2005. Now that defendant no.1 has admitted his liability to Rs.14,26,685/-, it would be proper to make the summons for judgment absolute and then pass a decree against defendant no.1 to the extent of Rs.14,26,685/- and leave rest of the other claim for trial. This shall be an order so far as defendant no.1 is concerned. 3. So far as defendant no.2 is concerned, the suit is filed against her on the strength of an admission in writing dated 12th April, 2005. She in fact, has nothing to do with the alleged transaction of the sale of shares by defendant no.1. : 3 : SJ-396-08=.sxw 3. The writing purported to have been done by defendant no.1 by itself cannot attract any liability at least at the stage of summons for judgment. 4. According to plaintiffs defendant no.3 has been joined as a formal party. In fact, the shares went into the hands of defendant no.1 through defendant no.3 and, therefore, at the time of trial, role of defendant no.3 will have to be ascertained and thereafter the respective inferences will have be drawn. 5. In view of the above, following order is passed so as to dispose of the summons for judgment. ORDER (i) Summons for judgment is partly made absolute as regards Rs.14,26,685/- i.e. by passing following decree against defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 do pay to plaintiffs a sum of Rs.14,26,685/-. Defendant no.1 do pay to plaintiffs interest @ 12% per annum from today i.e. 27th August, : 4 : SJ-396-08=.sxw 2010 till realization on Rs.14,26,685/-. (ii) In so far as the rest of the suit claim, defendant no.1 is granted unconditional leave to defend. Accordingly, defendant no.1 to file his written statement on or before 11th October, 2010 directly in the office. (iii) Unconditional leave is granted to defendant no.2. She should file her written statement directly in the office on or before 11th October, 2010. (iv) Since the Summons for Judgment was not taken out against defendant no.3, defendant no.3 to file his written statement directly in the Office on or before 11th October, 2010. There shall be no order as to costs in the Summons for judgment. Suit to come up in usual course. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)