1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6032 OF 2008 Raju Shankar Kolhapurkar. ..Petitioner. V/s. Sushil Padmakar Parkar. ..Respondent. Mr.S.M.Railkar for petitioner. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 29, 2008. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2008. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. I find no merits in this Petition. In my opinion, the view taken by the Court below cannot be faulted. The Court below has considered all relevant aspects of the matter and has exercised discretion requiring the Petitioner to pay only sum of Rs.3 Lakhs so as to grant conditional leave to defend. The reason for that approach has been noted in the Judgment under challenge. 3. The argument of the Petitioner is that the Suit was originally filed against one Raju Shankar Kolhapure, however was subsequently amended on 25th July, 2007. According to the Petitioner, the claim 2 of the Respondent/Plaintiff was based on documents indicating the name of the signatory as Raju Kolhapure and not name of the Petitioner i.e. Raju Kolhapurkar. Obviously, therefore, the Court has restricted the direction of deposit only sum of Rs.3 Lakhs keeping in mind the document at page 13 of the paper book, which has been signed by the Petitioner himself. The Court below has found as of fact at this prima facie stage that on comparison of the signature appearing on the said document with the admitted documents, the signature appears to be that of the Petitioner. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the said finding as it is a possible view. If that view is to be upheld, it necessarily follows that the Petitioner has acknowledged his liability to pay atleast sum of Rs.3,55,000/- under his signature as can be discerned from the document at page 13. If that document is reckoned, the direction issued by the trial Court against the Petitioner to pay sum of Rs.3 Lakhs is just and proper. It is not necessary for us to examine the stand of the Petitioner with reference to other documents at page 14, which bears name as Raju Shankarrao Kolhapure, whereunder the said person has acknowledged the liability to pay sum of Rs. six Lakhs. Even if that document is left out as 3 aforesaid document at page 13 would prima facie indicate that the Petitioner was liable to pay Rs.3,55,000/- as indicated therein. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the discretionary order passed by the lower Court. Hence dismissed. 3. The only indulgence that can be shown to the Petitioner is to permit him to deposit the amount in terms of the Order dated 26/6/2008 within four weeks from today, as the Petitioner has approached this Court questioning correctness of that order. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)