1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6571 OF 2011 M/s. Ajantha Distributors ...Petitioners Versus Narendra Ganpatrao Jadhav ...Respondent Mr. Mayur Joglekar for the Petitioner CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondent herein filed Special Summary Suit No.175 of 2005 in the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune (hereafter referred to as learned trial Judge). After the service of summons, Summons for Judgment was taken out. Same was decided. Petitioners were granted leave to defend and thereafter the petitioners filed application below Exhibit 26 praying that the plaint be rejected as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the respondent had no cause of action. 2 2. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Judge by Order dated 14.1.2011. This Order dated 14.1.2011 is challenged in this petition. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had agreed to pay the loan amount within a period of two years from the date of receipt of the same, as also the petitioners had agreed to pay interest at a particular rate. The respondents filed suit for recovery of money. According to the petitioners, substantial amount was paid much before filing of the suit and therefore the respondent could not have filed the suit for reliefs sought in the plaint for recovery of the money and in particular sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and odd along with interest. After having heard learned Advocate for the petitioners, I am inclined to observe that the learned Judge has arrived at correct finding by passing the impugned order. If the petitioners claim that they had paid substantial amount before the institution of the suit, that can be the point of defence and that cannot be considered as point for the purpose of rejection of the plaint. The petitioners were and are free to raise all the defences in 3 the suit. In my view, no interference is required in the impugned order and the petition is required to be dismissed. Hence the order. ORDER Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)