S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. In this Appeal, the order dated 5th July, 2016, of the learned single Judge passed on the Summons for Judgment No. 60 of 2014 in Summary Suit No. 66 of 2013 is challenged by the original defendants.

2. The respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff.

3. The suit in question was filed by invoking Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The respondent-plaintiff urged that he is a resident of the islands of Trinidad & Tobago. The first defendant to the suit is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. The original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 & 6 are the individuals & principal borrowers having their residence/respective office at the addresses mentioned in the cause title of the plaint. The original defendant No.5 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The seventh defendant to the suit is a guarantor of the loan amount granted by the plaintiff to the defendant Nos. 1 to 6.

4. It is claimed that all the defendants are involved in the business of film production and distribution. A loan amount in the sum of US $ 5,00,000 equivalent to Rs.2,68,80,000/- on the date of filing of the Summary Suit was due and payable.

5. It is claimed that in or about December 2009, the original defendant Nos.2 and 3 met the respondent No.1-plaintiff and requested him for refundable advance in the sum of US $ 5,00,000. The loan amount was to enable the defendant No.1- company and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 to pay moneys which were due and payable by them to Reliance Big Entertainment Private Limited in respect of a movie titled “Dulha Mil Gaya”. That is how the respondent No.1-plaintiff agreed to lend the amount. An agreement dated 2nd January, 2010 was entered into between the defendant No.1-company, defendant No.5 and the plaintiff. After setting out the relevant clauses of this agreement, in paragraph 4 of the plaint it stated that pursuant to the execution of this agreement between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5, a promissory note dated 2nd January, 2010, was executed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6 in the plaintiffs favour. Thus, the borrowers executed this promissory note and it was agreed that they would jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff, the loan amount or any shortfall thereof. Annexure-B to the plaint is a copy of the promissory note.

6. Then, an e-mail dated 3rd January, 2010, by the defendant No.7 informed the plaintiff that he would be a personal guarantor for the repayment of this loan or any shortfall thereof. A copy of this document is Annexure-C to the plaint. Then, there is a remittance from the bank which evidences that the loan amount was remitted by the first respondent. The account of defendant No.1 maintained by it at the Union Bank of India at Mumbai was credited. Thus, the loan was repayable on or before 8th April, 2010. On 6th March, 2010, the respondent No.1-plaintiff reminded the defendants that the loan amount was due and payable in full before 8th April, 2010. On 8th April, 2010, the defendants failed and/or neglected to repay this amount. Therefore, an e-mail was addressed, copy of which is at Annexure- F. The second defendant on behalf of the defendants addressed an e-mail dated 9th April, 2010, denying that the amount advanced by respondent No.1-plaintiff was a loan, but was to be treated as a refundable advance against overseas territory of the film Dulha Mil Gaya. Further, it was also stated in the said e-mail that the defendants were contemplating on sending to the plaintiff certain remedial measures after reconciling the accounts of the firm but they would do so only upon consulting their attorneys. The emails at Annexures G, H and I are relied upon in the plaint to contend that these are acknowledgements of the liability. Despite having acknowledged the liability in telephonic conversations as also in writing, this amount styled as a loan