- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition No. 2521 of 2005 filed by the appellant. By the impugned judgement the High Court upheld the view of the trial court in Summary Suit No. 10 of 2001 that the appellant has not made out a case for unconditional leave to defend in terms of Or. 37 R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short the 'CPC').
(3.) The factual background in a nutshell are as follows: Summary Suit No. 10 of 2001 has been filed by the respondent before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kalyan for recovery of an amount of Rs. 98,81,426.63. In addition, the plaintiff has claimed interest from the date of filing of the suit till the realisation of the amount. The suit was filed on 05.07.2001. After issuing notice, the writ petitioner- defendant filed an application under Or. 37 R. 3(5) of the Civil Procedure Code for leave to defend unconditionally and the said application was rejected by the trial Court. The writ Petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 659 of 2002 and in terms of the consent orders, it was disposed of on 02.05.2002. The said order was to the effect that the writ petitioner was to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,00,000.00 with the trial Court within four months to show his bonafides and was entitled to take out an application for leave to defend which was required to be heard on merits. If he succeeded in his application for leave to defend, he was allowed to withdraw the amount deposited. The trial Court heard the parties afresh and by order dated 11.03.2005 allowed the application (Ex. 34) on the condition that the writ petitioner was to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 50,00,000.00 in two instalments. The said order was challenged before the High Court.;