Vaishnavi 25-WP-1718-2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1718 OF 2020 Vikram Virsen Kadam and Anr. ...Petitioners (Orig. Defendants) V/s. Pride Builder Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent (Orig. Plaintiff) ________________ Mr. Tanmay Pawar i/b Mr. Pramod Pawar and Mr. Swapnil Kadade, for the Petitioners. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 25 AUGUST 2026 P.C.: 1) The Petition challenges order dated 2 November 2019 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, allowing application at Exhibit 22 filed by the Petitioner/Defendant and granting conditional leave to defend to the Petitioner upon deposit of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as a precondition for filing of written statement. 2) I have heard Mr. Pawar, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners and have considered the submissions canvassed by him. 3) Plaintiff has filed summary suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 16,04,959/- Plaintiff’s case as pleaded in the plaint is that an amount of Page No. 1 of 4 25 August 2026 2026:BHC-AS:35159 Vaishnavi 25-WP-1718-2020 Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid to the Defendants as friendly loan and for assuring repayment, Defendant No.2 issued a cheque to the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 also executed a promissory note/receipt/ acknowledgment on 9 March 2010 in favour of the Plaintiff. Since amount is not repaid, the summary suit is filed. 4) Defendants appeared in the summary suit and filed application for leave to Defend. In paragraph 17 of the Application, Defendants pleaded thus: 17. The defendant also further submits that considering the friendly relations between the Plaintiff's director and Defendant no.2, the defendant No. 2 in his indivisual capacity has shown his willingness to co- operate the Plaintiff for purpose of acquisition of land for the business activity of the Plaintiff company and for the said reasons, the Plaintiff has given an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in that regard to the defendant No. 2 and not as a hand loan as pretended by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, as per the directions and instruction of the Plaintiff itself, the defendant No.2 has utilized the said amount and the Plaintiff was and is also well aware of the said fact. However, in spite of rigorous efforts on the part of the defendant No.2, the said work could not be fructified due to certain difficulties and problems. Hence, the plaintiff has decided not to continue with the said transaction and as the plaintiff was well aware of the fact of genuine efforts of the defendants, hence, there was no question of alleged hand loan and repayment of the same and having well aware about the same, the Plaintiff has not proceeded against the defendant No. 2 in his indivisual capacity for the same. 5) Thus, there is an express admission by the Defendants about receipt of an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the Plaintiff. However, it is the defence of the Defendants that the amount was paid by the Plaintiff for the purpose of acquisition of land for business activity of Plaintiff- Company. The application, however, does not indicate as to why the Defendants were assisting the Plaintiff in acquisition of any land. The application does not make out that the land belongs to Defendants Page No. 2 of 4 25 August 2026 Vaishnavi 25-WP-1718-2020 which the Plaintiff was proposing to acquire. The application also does not make out that the Defendants are in the business of estate consultant. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to believe at this stage that Defendants are likely to succeed in their defence. 6) The Suit is also backed by written documents. To make the case of the Defendants worse, Defendant No. 2 has issued cheque in favour of the Plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Issuance of cheque by Defendant No.2 is again not disputed. 7) Mr. Pawar has relied on judgment of the Apex Court in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. V/s. Hubtown Ltd. 1 , in support of his contention that when Defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has fair or reasonable defence, the Defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend, even if what is presented by him is not a positively good defence. The principle, however, is inapplicable in the facts of the present case. From pleadings in paragraph 17 for application for leave to defend, it becomes difficult to conclude at this stage that the Defendants have a fair or reasonable defence. On the contrary, there is an express admission on the part of the Defendants about receipt of amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the Plaintiff. 8) Mr. Pawar has also sought to contend that the documents relied upon by the Plaintiffs are unstamped and inadmissible in evidence. At this stage, the Court cannot go into the issue of admissibility of the documents in evidence. In any case, whether Plaintiff at all needs to 1 (2017) 1 SCC 568 Page No. 3 of 4 25 August 2026 Vaishnavi 25-WP-1718-2020 prove the promissory note/receipt/acknowledgment is debatable in the light of specific admission given by the Defendants in paragraph 17 of the application that they have received the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 9) Considering the above position, there is no warrant for interference in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 4 of 4 25 August 2026 Signed by: VAISHNAVI MAHADEV SHEJAL Designation: PA to Honorable Judge Date: 27/08/2026 16:28:56