*1* sj.525.09.ss.1769.09 kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.525 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1769 OF 2009 Bell Finvest (India) Limited. ..Plaintiff -Versus- Krishnamurthy Govindswamy Reddy. ..Defendant .......... Rupesh Sohoni, for the Plaintiff. Harshad Palve, for the Defendant. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 06th December, 2010. P.C. 1 This is a Summary Suit based on the promissory note executed by the Defendant on 27.10.2010 of Rs.10 lacs. The suit is also based on the dishonour of cheques issued by the Defendant under his signature in the sum of Rs.5 lacs each. These cheques on presentation were dishonoured. 2 The Plaintiff has set out as to how he came in touch with the Defendant through the M.D. Mr.Bhupesh Mohanlal Rathod. It is stated that the Plaintiff gave friendly loan of Rs.10 lacs to the Defendant. When asked as to what were the terms and what documents were executed, the Plaintiff has clarified that the dealings were between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and save and except this promissory note and two cheques, no other writings have been executed nor have been obtained. The liability is absolute and that is how the suit is maintainable as a summary suit. The *2* sj.525.09.ss.1769.09 demand notice has been issued and the Plaintiff received no reply or any response thereto. 3 However, on lodging of the plaint and serving the writ of summons, the Defendant entered the appearance and sought leave to defend by filing the reply to this Summons for Judgment and it is stated that it is Bhupesh Rathod who has brought about a situation where under the documents have been given to him and he obtained the signatures on two blank promissory notes and 14 cheques. However, the entire affidavit does not contain any denial of the fact that the promissory note was not executed or that the cheques have not been issued. The grievance is with regard to the rate of interest but the Plaintiff states that the loan advanced was not to carry any interest. Even otherwise, it is urged by the Plaintiff’s Advocate that leaving aside the stipulation with regard to the interest and dispute between the parties, the liability under the promissory note and dishonoured cheques has been undisputed throughout. 4 I have perused the plaint and annexures thereto, so also, all replies placed on record. From reading thereof, I am satisfied that the suit is maintainable as a summary suit inasmuch as it is based on the promissory note and dishonoured cheques, both of which can be made basis of such suit. I am also satisified that the claim of Plaintiff is within limitation because the suit is filed on 14.05.2009 and the cheques are dated 07.11.2008 and 09.11.2008 and came to be dishonoured on 10.11.2008 and 14.11.2008. Further the Defendant carries on the business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. However, with a view to afford an opportunity to the Defendant to make the good his case on the basis of version set out in the affidavit in reply, I am of the opinion that conditional leave to defend would serve the ends of justice. 5 Accordingly, the following order:- *3* sj.525.09.ss.1769.09 (1) On the Defendant depositing in this Court a sum of Rs.10 lacs within a period of 12 weeks from today, there will be conditional leave to defend the suit. There upon the suit shall be transferred to the list of commercial causes with usual direction to file the Written Statement, discovery and inspection. (2) In default of deposit of the aforesaid amount, all consequences in law shall follow. (3) The Summons for Judgment is disposed of accordingly. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)