=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.515 OF 2004 NO.515 OF 2004 NO.515 OF 2004 IN IN IN SUMMONS SUMMONS SUMMONS FOR FOR FOR JUDGMENT NO.232 OF 2002 JUDGMENT NO.232 OF 2002 JUDGMENT NO.232 OF 2002 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUMMARY SUMMARY SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.255 OF 2002 NO.255 OF 2002 NO.255 OF 2002 Suhas Madhav Surdi ...Appellant v/s Rolta India Ltd. ...Respondents Mr U.P. Warunjikar for Appellant. Mr D.D. Madon with Mr U.J. Shah and Mr G. Shah i/b M/s Arvind Rathod and Co. for Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 =2= P.C. :- 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16th April 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in summons for judgment No.232 of 2002. By that order, the Court has granted conditional leave to defend the suit to the defendant who is appellant herein. The relevant facts are that the respondents - plaintiffs filed summary suit claiming money decree in the amounts which are mentioned in the plaint, based on written agreement entered into between the parties. Thereafter, summons for judgment was taken out, affidavits have been filed by both the sides and the learned Single Judge has decided the summons for judgment by the order impugned. The learned Single Judge has found that there were four defences raised. The learned Single Judge has found that three defences have no substance. The learned Single Judge has found that even if it is assumed that there is some substance in the last defence and defendant is entitled to claim adjustment, then so far as an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- is concerned, there appears to be no defence and therefore the defendant was directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as a condition for getting leave to defend. The defendant is in appeal against that order. =3= 2. The learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that the amount of Rs.6,93,000/- has been claimed under the agreement dated 11th April 2000. According to the learned counsel appearing for appellant, he executed this agreement under force and he did not actually undertake the training for the purpose of which this agreement was entered into. The leaned counsel took us through the documents on record and contended that the original document on the basis of which the plaintiffs are claiming that the defendant has undergone training is not available. The learned counsel then relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar v/s Bhai Mool Singh, reported in AIR 1958 SC 321 and in the case of Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd. v/s Chamanlal Bros., reported in AIR 1965 SC 1698 to contend that when it is found by the learned Single Judge that there is some defence to be offered by the defendant at least on one aspect of the matter, then the learned Single Judge should have granted unconditional leave to defend to the defendant. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for respondents. We find that all defences that have been raised about the claim of the plaintiffs for Rs.6,93,000/- are false defences and have ben raised by the defendant only to avoid making payment of money. We =4= find that the case of the defendant that he did not undertake the training in relation to which the agreement was entered into is incapable of being believed because the letter dated 16th May 2000 on the basis of which the claim is made by the plaintiffs is addressed by the person who had given training to the defendant himself. This letter has been referred to in the plaint and it is claimed that the defendant himself was informed by the trainer about the training undergone by the defendant. Admittedly, in the reply, the defendant does not say anything about this letter. In other words, in the absence of any specific denial, this letter stands admitted by the defendant. Thus, it becomes an admitted position that the defendant has undergone training in relation to which the agreement was entered into. The second letter on which the reliance is placed by the plaintiffs is the letter of the defendant dated 7th July 2001. That letter is addressed by the defendant to one Mr Holay of the plaintiffs. That letter is referred to by the plaintiffs in the plaint and has claimed that this letter was addressed by the plaintiffs in relation to the agreement of 11th April 2000 and by that letter, the defendant has admitted his liability under that agreement. Again in the reply that is filed by the defendant, this fact is not denied, this letter is not referred to and nothing is said about the letter. It is =5= thus clear from the record that not only plaintiffs have open and shut case in relation to their claim of Rs.6,93,000/- but it clearly appears from the record that that is an admitted claim. In our opinion, therefore, the defendant was not entitled to any unconditional leave to defend unless the amount was paid. From the particulars of the claim, it is clear that so far as the first two items are concerned i.e. claim of Rs.1,77,825/-, the defence was about the resignation. It was the claim of the defendant that he had given resignation much before and therefore there was no question of any notice period but it is clear from the record that no such resignation letter is forthcoming. Thus, there appears to be no defence about Rs.1,77,825/-. There also appears to be no defence about the claim of Rs.64,000/-. We have already recorded that there is no defence about the claim of Rs.6,93,000/-. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in holding that none of the three defences have any substance. In our opinion, really speaking, the learned Single Judge had shown the indulgence to the defendant by accepting his entire defence for the purpose of grant of leave to defend in relation to adjustment and accepted that even accepting the entire evidence, then also an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- has to be paid by the defendant. In our opinion, the appeal is frivolous and liable to be =6= dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed, the appellant to pay cost of this appeal to the respondents. At the request of the learned counsel appellant, time to deposit the balance amount is extended by six weeks from today. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy is expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( A.A. SAYED J.)