BABUSHA CHAMPSHI SHAHversusSULOCHANA DHIRENDRA SHAN (MOTHER OF DECD BANKIM D SHAH) AND

                                                                           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
SAINATH
SANJAY             Judge was persuaded to grant an unconditional leave to defend the
BODKHE
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY BODKHE
Date: 2026.08.24
20:26:09 +0530     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
                                                             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 30 th 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