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.
The writ Petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
The said order was to the effect that the writ petitioner was to deposit an amount of Rs.
The said order was challenged before the High Court.
The trial Court heard the parties afresh and by order dated 11.03.2005 allowed the application Ex.
34 on the companydition that the writ petitioner was to deposit an additional amount of Rs.50,00,000/ in two instalments.
2521 of 2005 filed by the appellant.
In addition, the plaintiff has claimed interest from the date of filing of the suit till the realisation of the amount.
20,00,000/ 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.
The suit was filed on 05.07.2001.
It was also pointed out that the writ petitioner had taken up the issue with its Architect and all the bills submitted by the plaintiff were returned to the Architect.
After issuing numberice, the writ petitioner defendant filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 5 of P.C. for leave to defend unconditionally and the said application was rejected by the trial Court.
Thus, the writ petitioner had number accepted the payments as claimed by the plaintiff.
By the impugned judgment the High Court upheld the view of the trial companyrt in Summary Suit No.10 of 2001 that the appellant has number made out a case for unconditional leave to defend in terms of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in short the CPC .
If he succeeded in his application for leave to defend, he was allowed to withdraw the amount deposited.
Arising out of SLP C No.
20393 of 2005 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
659 of 2002 and in terms of the companysent orders, it was disposed of on 02.05.2002.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition No.
