VIKRAM VIRSEN KADAM AND ANRversusPRIDE BUILDER PVT. LTD.

2026:BHC-AS:35159

              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
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.]




Signed by: VAISHNAVI MAHADEV
                                                           Page No.4 of 4
SHEJAL                                                    25 August 2026
Designation: PA to Honorable Judge
Date: 27/08/2026 16:28:56