G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. This is an appeal of the appellant/defendant, against an order dated 18 April 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge on a summons for judgment taken out by the respondents/ plaintiffs, in a Commercial Summary Suit, instituted on a bill of exchange that is dishonour of a cheque. By the impugned order a conditional leave, to defend the suit has been granted in terms of the following order:

“8. In the premises, the following order is passed:

(i) Defendant no. 1 is granted leave to defend the suit on and subject to the condition of deposit in this court of a sum of Rs. 1,86,78,313/- within a period of eight weeks from today.

(ii) The amount, if any, deposited by the Defendants may be invested by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this court in Fixed Deposits of Nationalised Banks initially for a period of thirteen months and renewable thereafter from time to time and to abide by further orders that may be passed in the suit herein.”

2. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs as made out in the plaint is that money was advanced to the appellant/defendant. For repayment of the amounts so advanced a cheque for Rs. 1,86,78,313/- was issued by the appellant/defendant in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs, which on presentation for payment was dishonoured by the drawee bank with remark exceeds arrangement. The issuance of the cheque in question is not disputed by the appellant/defendant. The case of the appellant/defendant is that a blank cheque was issued in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs also filed a criminal complaint against the appellant/defendant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondents/plaintiffs accordingly filed the summary suit in question upon the said negotiable instrument as issued by the appellants/defendants and dishonoured. A summons for judgment as filed was defended by the appellant/defendant by filing a reply.

3. The objection of the appellants/defendants to the summons for judgment was principally that the respondent/plaintiff being a money lender, Section 13 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (for short ‘the Act’) was attracted. By virtue of this provision the Court would not pass a decree in favour of a money lender, in any suit, unless the money lender holds a valid licence under the said Act. The summary suit in question therefore could not be decreed. In this situation, in any case unconditional leave to defend was required to be granted. In support of its case before the learned Single Judge, the appellant/defendant placed reliance on the decisions in Sha Damji Deraj vs. Megraj Bhikumchand and Co. 1958 Bom. L.R. LX 1366, Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Zenal Construction Pvt. Ltd. Company Petition No. 243/2012 decided on 29.8.2013, Popular Entertainment Network Ltd. vs. Mehul Kumar, S.J. No. 54/2013 in S.S. No. 3303/2008 decided on 14.7.2015 and Yallava Nagappa Kunchikorve vs. Kantabai Malli, 2012 (3) Mh. L.J. 856.

4. The learned Single Judge considering the facts of the case, and the undisputed position of the appellant/defendant admitted issuance of cheque/bill of exchange, observed that it was clear from the reading of the plaint as a whole alongwith documents produced therewith, that the summary suit was not for recovery of a loan, but for compensation to the plaintiff as a holder of a bill of exchange or cheque on account of dishonour by the drawee or by the acceptor. The learned Single Judge also referred to the statutory recognition of such liability, as imposed in law, by referring to Section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which provides for liability of the drawer to repay the amount. It was observed that when payment is made by a cheque or another negotiable instrument, the liability under the loan is substituted by the liability to honour the cheque or the negotiable instrument as the case may be. The observations of the learned Judge in paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 of the impugned orde