1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUMMONS FOR JUDGEMENT NO.230 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.67 OF 2007 Jatin H. Kapadia .. Plaintiff versus Nakkapapa Rao Pallaya .. Defendant ... Ms.R.C. Shukla for the plaintiff Mr.Khayam Shaikh for the defendant CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED :30th June 2009 P.C:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Suit is filed on a promissory note. The defendant has denied his signature on the promissory note. He has stated that he does not even know the plaintiff. He has annexed to the affidavit his specimen signature verified by the bankers. Prima facie, the specimen signature which is verified by the bankers appears to be different than the signature on the promissory note. 2 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has obtained opinion of the handwriting expert which shows that the signature on the promissory note is that of the defendant. 3. In any event, whether the defendant has signed and executed the promissory note is a seriously disputed question of fact. That question cannot be determined in a summary manner. The defence raised by the defendant cannot be said to be illusory. 4. The defendant is therefore granted unconditional leave to defend the suit. However, hearing of the suit is expedited. 5. The suit shall stand transferred to the list of commercial cause. Defendant shall file written statement within 10 weeks. 6. Liberty to the plaintiff to apply for fixing a date for hearing after the defendant files the written statement. (D.G. KARNIK, J)