Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 221 OF 2015 M/s. Arihant Universal Realty Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant Versus Rakesh Pravin Sanghvi …Respondent Mr. Bhavik Manek, a/w Pranav Chavan, i/b Mahesh Menon &

co., for the Applicant.

Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Vishal Phal and Prasshant Berri, for the Respondent.

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.

D SAig Nit Ta Olly S Hsi g Sn Ue Bd H b Ay SH DATED: 3^rd APRIL, 2025 KULKARNI Date: 2025.04.03 21:10:53 +0530 ORDER:-

1. This revision is directed against an order dated 20^th April, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Thane, in Summary Suit No.9 of 2015, whereby leave to defend the suit was granted to the defendant – respondent on the condition that the suit be disposed within a period of six months and the defendant shall not seek any adjournment.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this application can be summarized in brief as under: 2.1 The applicant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The applicant is engaged in the business, inter alia, of development of lands and construction of buildings.

2.2 The defendant had approached the applicant with a proposal to sell, assign or transfer certain lands situated in Navi Mumbai. The defendant had represented that he had a huge land bank at various nodes in Navi Mumbai. The defendant also represented that he had purchased the awards from the beneficiaries, who were to be allotted the plots under 12.5% Gavthan Expansion Scheme implemented by CIDCO, by way of additional compensation to the landholders whose lands were acquired. Believing the representations of the defendant the plaintiff entered into the transactions.

2.3 The defendant thus executed three Memorandums of Understanding dated 27^th June, 2010, 16^th September, 2010 and 15^th November, 2011, thereby agreeing to sell the plots at Sector- 29 Kharghar and Sector 11 Ulwe, Navi Mumbai. The defendant induced the plaintiff to part with a consideration of Rs.5,51,00,000/- under the said MoUs. The plaintiff was also induced to part with an additional sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on the joint representation of the defendant and his son.

2.4 The plaintiff pursued the matter. The defendant sought time on one or the other pretext. Eventually, it transpired that the plots, which were proposed to be sold, were non-existent in the development plans sanctioned by the CIDCO. An exchange of correspondence ensued. The defendant kept on acknowledging the liability and giving assurances. Eventually, on 13^th October, 2014 a Memorandum of Settlement came to be executed, wherein the defendant unequivocally acknowledged that he had received a sum of Rs.6,01,00,000/- from the plaintiff and was liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,83,31,910/- to the plaintiff and delivered three cheques for the sums of Rs.1 Crore, Rs. 6 Crore and Rs.6,83,31,910/- payable on 5^th November, 2014, 25^th November, 2014 and 25^th December, 2014, respectively. However, before the date of the presentment of the first cheque, the defendant addressed a notice to the plaintiff on 31^st October, 2014 raising false contentions. The plaintiff issued an appropriate reply.

2.5 Upon presentment, the above-referred cheques were returned unencashed. Statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act,1881”) was issued. Instead of complying with the demand, the defendant addressed reply raising false, frivolous and dishonest contentions. Thus, the summary suit based on a written contract and the negotiable instruments. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to grant unconditional leave observing, inter alia, that a triable issue was raised and the defendant deserved leave to defend on the stipulation as to the time for the disposal of the suit.

3. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has invoked the revisional jurisdiction.

4. Mr. Manek, the learned Counsel for the applicant, strenuo