29 WP-9004-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9004 OF 2026 Vaibhav Ashok Aher ..Petitioner Versus Vishnu Sukdeo Baste & ors. …Respondents Mr. Sachin Gite, for the Petitioner. Mr. Girish Agrawal, a/w Mr. Shubham Jangam, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026 Oral Order :- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 18th April, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Niphad, whereby an application preferred by the plaintiff to recall the order passed below Exh. 30 in Summary Suit No.3/2025 dated 09th January, 2026 thereby granting an unconditional leave to defend the summary suit, came to be rejected. SAINATH, PA 1/4 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.09.24 17:54:10 +0530 29 WP-9004-26.DOC 3. The petitioner has instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.67,00,000/- which was advanced by the petitioner to the defendants by way of a hand loan through banking channel. 4. By the impugned order dated 09th January, 2026, the learned Judge was persuaded to grant unconditional leave to defend the suit by a single line reason that, the defendants have raised substantial issues in respect of the claim amount. 5. The impugned order is sans reasons. The learned Judge has not adverted to the provisions contained in Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Code, 1908”) nor has consulted the binding precedents which guide the Courts in the matter of grant of leave to defend a summary suit. 6. The tests for deciding an application for grant of leave to defend a summary suit have been reformulated by the Supreme Court in the case IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Hubtown Ltd1. In the case B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. Vs. M/s Jms Steels & Power Corporation & anr.2, the Supreme Court has further expounded the factors which ought to weigh with the Court in granting or refusing to grant leave to defend the summary suit. 7. Without satisfying himself as to whether the defendant has raised a substantial defence or triable issues or for that 1 (2017) 1 SCC 568 2 (2022) 3 SCC 294 SAINATH, PA 2/4 29 WP-9004-26.DOC matter, the defence raised by the defendants is sham or bogus, the learned Judge has granted an unconditional leave to defend the suit. 8. In this view of the matter, without delving into the merits of the case, this Court considers it appropriate to remit the matter back to the learned Civil Judge for deciding the application for grant of leave to defend the summary suit afresh. 9. Hence, the following order :- : : O R D E R : : i) The Writ Petition stands allowed. ii) The impugned order stands quashed and set aside. iii) The application for grant of leave to defend the summary suit (Exh.30) stands restored to file of learned Civil Judge, Niphad. iv) The learned Civil Judge is requested to hear and decide the application for leave to defend the summary suit afresh, after adverting to the provisions contained in Order XXXVII of the Code, 1908 and the binding judicial precedents, as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of 2 SAINATH, PA 3/4 29 WP-9004-26.DOC months from the date of communication of this order. The Writ Petition stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 4/4