In similar facts, another Summary Suit No.
In these circumstances, it appears that the appellant moved an application dated 1.11.2000 for permission to amend the special leave petitions in both these appeals and to challenge the judgment and decree dated 27.7.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge.
567/1997 whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the order dated 02.12.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in Summary Suit No.
It appears that numberorder was passed on the said applications for amendment of the special leave petitions whereby the appellant sought to challenge the judgment and decree dated 27.7.1998.
Aggrieved against the order dated 11.12.1997 passed by the Division Bench disposing of both the appeals, the appellant is before us by way of present appeals.
It may be mentioned here that due to number compliance by the appellant herein of the order passed dated 02.12.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge, the suits were decreed by learned Single Judge in favour of the respondents defendants vide order judgment and decree dated 27.7.1998.
6082/2001 and in the said suit the learned Single Judge allowed leave to defend the suit subject to the appellant defendant depositing Rs.
1,25,000/ and two hundies for the equal amount.
Since both the appeals before the High Court have been dismissed by a companymon order, the present appeals are taken up together for hearing and final disposal by this companymon order.
2,00,000/ in Court.
Aggrieved against the said order dated 02.12.1996 of the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench vide order dated 11.12.1997 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6083/2001 arises out of the judgment and order dated 11.12.1997 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in appellants Appeal No.
377/1995 was filed by one Mohandas Gurdasani husband of deceased Neelam M.Gurdasani , respondent in Civil Appeal No.
The said suit was companytested by the appellant herein.
The learned Single Judge by his order dated 02.12.1996 permitted the appellant defendant to defend the suit on deposit of Rs.2,50,000/ .
The hundies were given by way of security.
Civil Appeal No.
376/1995 whereby the appellant original defendant was permitted to defend the suit on deposit of Rs.2,50,000/ .
2,50,000/ against the appellant defendant.
On appeal the Division Bench also affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the said Suit and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein by order dated 11.12.1997.
The said suit was based on two cheques each of Rs.
Brief facts are, the respondent original plaintiff, Neelam M. Gurdasani since deceased filed a suit for recover of Rs.
