IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1374 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO. 1374 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO. 1374 OF 2008 IN IN IN APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 794 OF 2007 NO. 794 OF 2007 NO. 794 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUMMONS SUMMONS SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 735 OF 2005 FOR JUDGMENT NO. 735 OF 2005 FOR JUDGMENT NO. 735 OF 2005 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUMMARY SUMMARY SUIT NO. 4305 OF 2001 SUIT NO. 4305 OF 2001 SUIT NO. 4305 OF 2001 Shri Kamala Prasad Gupta ] .. Appellant (Org.Defendant) Versus Shri Idris M. Haveliwala ] .. Respondent (Org.Plaintiff) Mr. S.B. Sharma i/b S.S. Mishra for the appellant. Mr. P.N. Mahajan for the respondent. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED: 28TH JULY, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. Though this is a money decree, we are inclined to grant interim stay in the present matter because the Memorandum of Understanding (for short "MOU") is executed on a stamp paper dated 5th August, 1997. However, there are discrepancies in the document. As against the date of 31/08/1998, in the bracket, in words : 2 : the date is mentioned as "Nineteen eighty eight". The particulars of Rs.1,42,000/- which is the amount advanced by the respondent have not been given. It only states that prior to the MOU, the amount has been advanced, but the date of advancing the amount and in what manner the amount was advanced is not disclosed. It is stated in paragraph 1 of the said MOU that on or before the execution of the MOU, an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- has been advanced, whereas in paragraph 3 it is stated that the amount payable is only Rs.90,000/- as balance and that too, in the year 1998 (Nineteen eighty eight). This document is itself a discrepant document upon which the claim of the plaintiff is based. The defendant has raised a defence that he had given certain blank papers and cheques to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has misused them. 3. Under the circumstances mentioned above, a detail hearing of the matter is necessary and, therefore, we grant stay to the execution of the impugned order and judgment dated 6/6/2006. 4. Notice of Motion stands disposed of accordingly. : 3 : Sd/- Sd/- [PRASANNA [PRASANNA [PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.] B. VARALE, J.] B. VARALE, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]