14-WP-10462-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10462 OF 2026 Babusha Champshi Shah ..Petitioner Versus Sulochana Dhirendra Shah & Ors …Respondents Mr. Pradeep J Thorat, i/b Aditi S Naikare, for the Petitioner. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 21st AUGUST 2026 ORDER: 1. Heard Mr. Pradeep J Thorat, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. This Petition assails an order dated 5th May 2026 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, whereby the learned Judge was persuaded to grant an unconditional leave to defend the summary suit. 3. Late Bankim Shah was the son of Sulochana Dhirendra Shah (D1) and brother of Pulkit Shah (D2). Late Bankim Shah was an investment and financial advisor and the Plaintiff had allegedly invested a sum of Rs.1,22,00,000/- with late Bankim Shah for investment in SBI Bonds, Government Bonds and other financial institutions. Late Bankim Shah ARS 1/4 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.08.24 20:26:09 +0530 14-WP-10462-2026.DOC and Pulkit Shah (D2) did not invest the said amount, as promised. Eventually in the month of September 2015, late Bankim Shah allegedly visited the house of the Plaintiff along with Sulochana (D1) and Pulkit (D2) and executed a document undertaking to return a sum of Rs.1,42,00,000/-. Late Bankim Shah had also drawn three cheques for an aggregate amount of Rs.80,00,000/- towards discharge of the said liability. However, those cheques were dishonoured. Bankim Shah passed away on 21st March 2017. 4. After the demise of Bankim Shah, the Plaintiff asserts, Sulochana (D1) acknowledged the liability to pay the outstanding of Rs.1,42,00,000/- and executed a promissory note, dated 30th March 2017. A charge on the residential property, being Flat No. 6, Nidhi Building, V.P. Road, Girgaum, Mumbai, was also acknowledged. Alleging default in the discharge of the said liability, the Petitioner instituted a summary suit based on the purported promissory note executed by Sulochana (D1). 5. The learned Judge, City Civil Court, granted an unconditional leave to defend the suit observing that the question whether the legal representatives of Bankim Shah were liable to discharge the debt, incurred by late Bankim Shah, raised a triable issue as the aspect as to whether Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had inherited the property from late Bankim Shah would warrant adjudication. ARS 2/4 14-WP-10462-2026.DOC 6. Mr. Thorat submitted that the learned Judge, City Civil Court was in error in granting an unconditional leave to defend the suit. It was not the contention of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that they had not inherited the property from late Bankim Shah. On the contrary, the Defendants disputed the very execution of the written acknowledgment and the promissory note. 7. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submissions of Mr. Thorat. The learned Judge, City Civil Court, correctly appreciated the nature of the liability of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. In fact, in paragraph 8 of the Plaint, the Plaintiff has categorically asserted that Defendant No.1 and 2 being the legal heirs and representatives of late Bankim Shah are jointly and severally liable to pay the sum of Rs.1,42,00,000/- to the Plaintiff. 8. Moreover, the very tenability of the suit in the present form as a summary suit appears debatable as the Plaintiff is also seeking a decree against Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to satisfy the claim of the Plaintiff by way of transfer and possession of the abovereferred residential premises. Thus the statement in paragraph 15 of the Plaint that, no relief which does not fall within the ambit of Rule 2 of Order XXXVII, has been claimed in the Plaint, prima facie appears to be in the teeth of the said Rule. ARS 3/4 14-WP-10462-2026.DOC 9. It is not the case of the Plaintiff that Sulochana (D1) had personally incurred the debt. Thus, at any rate, in a summary suit of the present nature the question of liability of the legal representatives of the deceased-debtor to discharge the debt clearly raises a triable issue. 10. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The Petition thus stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS 4/4