JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff has filed this Summary Suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Seeking a decree from the defendant in the sum of Rs.1,49,54,224/- along with interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.69,00,000/- from the date of the loan till payment and/or realization thereof. The particulars of claim are set out at Exhibit I of the plaint.

2. The claim is based on a friendly loan for an amount of Rs.69,00,000/-. The loan was given in installments, which is more particularly mentioned in paragraph 5 of the plaint. To secure this said loan, the defendant has executed four promissory notes, more particularly described in paragraph 6 of the plaintiff. The amounts were acknowledged year after year by the defendant who executed confirmation of accounts.

3. On 3rd May 2017, the defendant paid an interest of Rs.2,00,000/- against the due amounts. On account of nonpayment of the dues, the present suit was filed.

4. The writ of summons was served on the defendant upon which the defendant entered appearance and thereafter, the plaintiff filed the summons for judgment to which there is a reply and a rejoinder.

5. In reply, the defendant denies that this was a friendly loan. According to him, the amounts were transferred for supply of machinery as the plaintiff wanted to establish a factory to manufacture rubber tyres at Mumbai. The defendant contends that upon receipt of the monies, the same were paid to the various companies who in turn transferred the machinery to his factory premises and upon receiving these machines, the defendant requested the plaintiff to arrange the collection thereof. The defendant contends that instead of collecting the machinery, the plaintiff demanded the refund of money and since he had already purchased the machinery for the plaintiff, it was impossible for him to return the money. The defendant contended that Rs.2,00,000/- that was paid to the plaintiff was against the raw material supplied for the manufacture of tyre and not towards interest as contended by the plaintiff. The defendant contends that at the time of receiving the money, he issued the promissory notes only for security to ensure the supply of machinery and not for the payment of money. The learned counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant has a vast experience in manufacturing of rubber products and is also having a factory for manufacturing at M.I.D.C. Amravati. After the plaintiff's had approached the defendant in 2014-15 for the purpose of setting up such a business, the defendant had accepted the proposal subject to payment of Rs,8,00,000/- as their fees for helping the plaintiff to establish such business.

6. The plaintiff, accordingly, transferred money and the defendant organized purchase of machinery which he brought to his factory premises at Amravati. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff changed his mind and accordingly, instead of collecting the machinery, sought to demand the money. The machinery remained idle and has got rusted. The learned counsel submitted that the defendant was wiling to deliver the machinery and plaintiff was free to take the machinery whenever he chose to. According to him, this is a dispute which cannot be determined at the interim stage and evidence would be required to determine the correctness of the statements. He accordingly submitted that he has a good case on merits and this is not a case which is within the scope of a summary suit. He therefore urged that the suit be dismissed. However, the counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff would never part with such a huge amount without entering into a written contract.

7. In my view, there is absolutely no defense to the Summary Suit. The defense is neither plausible or probable but a complete moonshine defense. The defendant has failed to give any response as to why the defendant had signed confirmation of accounts for the period 1st April 2015 to 31st Marc