1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Appeal No.187 of 2009 With Notice of Motion No.1628 of 2009 In Summons for Judgment No.196 of 2008 In Summary Suit No.613 of 2008 M/s.Vora Enterprises Appellant Vs. Jitendra Mithalalji Rawal Respondent Mr.R.Narula with Mr.A.Dasgupta i/b. Jhangiani Narula & Associates for appellant. Mr.U.R.Tripathi for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & S.J.VAZIFDAR,JJ. June 26, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Narula, the learned counsel for the appellant. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge granting leave to defend on the condition of deposit of Rs.4,88,000/- with 21 per cent interest based on the promissory note executed by the defendant after receiving an amount of Rs.4,88,000/-. Admittedly no agreement was 2 signed between the parties and the transaction has fallen through. The learned Judge, therefore, held that on the face of the promissory note, the defendant – appellant has no defence in respect of the principal sum of Rs.4,88,000/- and he has a limited defence on the issue of interest claimed at 21 per cent per annum. It is pertinent to note that the promissory note itself mentions 21 per cent per annum interest. Even then we do not see any reason to cause interference in the impugned order. Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 2. Notice of Motion No.1628 of 2009 does not survive and the same stands disposed. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)