http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6082 of 2006

PETITIONER: Ghanshyam G. Khanchandani

RESPONDENT: Mohandas C. Gurdasani

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/2008

BENCH: A.K.MATHUR & ALTAMAS KABIR

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6083 OF 2006

Ghanshyam G. Khanchandani .... Appellant Versus Neelam M. Gurdasani(Since Dead) .... Respondent

1.      We have heard the appellant, who appears in person, as well as learned counsel  for the appellant on I.A. No. 3/2008 in C.A. No. 6083/2001. 2.      In this application the appellant has prayed that the sole respondent Mrs. Neelam  M. Gurdasani had expired on 28th September, 2007 in a car accident and, therefore, her  legal representatives may be brought on record and the appellant may be permitted to  amend the cause title. 3.      In the facts and circumstances of this case, we allow this application.  The name  of the deceased Mrs. Neelam M. Gurdasani is deleted and her legal representatives are  taken on record.   4.      Office may make the necessary amendment in the cause title in Civil Appeal No.  6083/2001. 5.      Both these appeals are taken up together for disposal as they involve similar  questions of fact and law. 6.      Civil Appeal No. 6083/2001 arises out of the judgment and order dated  11.12.1997 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in appellant’s Appeal No.  567/1997 whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the order dated 02.12.1996 passed by  the learned Single Judge in Summary Suit No. 376/1995 whereby the appellant-original  defendant was permitted to defend the suit on deposit of Rs.2,50,000/-.  Brief facts are,   the respondent-original plaintiff, Neelam M. Gurdasani(since deceased)  filed a suit for  recover of Rs. 2,50,000/- against the appellant-defendant.  The said suit was based on two  cheques each of Rs. 1,25,000/- and two hundies for the equal amount.  The hundies were  given by way of security.  The said suit was contested 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/-.  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.  7.      In similar facts, another Summary Suit No. 377/1995 was filed by one Mohandas  C. Gurdasani (husband of deceased Neelam M.Gurdasani), respondent in Civil Appeal  No. 6082/2001 and in the said suit the learned Single Judge allowed leave to defend the  suit subject to the appellant-defendant depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- in Court.  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.   Aggrieved against the order dated 11.12.1997 passed by the Division Bench disposing of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

both the appeals, the appellant is before us by way of present appeals. 8.      Since both the appeals before the High Court have been dismissed by a common  order, the present appeals are taken up together for hearing and final disposal by this  common order. 9.      It may be mentioned here that due to non-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.   10.     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.   It appears that no order 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.   11.     Be that as it may, now we allow the applications for permission to amend the  special leave petitions and permit the appellant to challenge the judgment and decree  dated 27.7.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge. 12.     We have heard the appellant, appearing in person, as also learned counsel for the  respondent.    The appellant has admitted that there was a transaction whereby  Rs.2,50,000/- was given to him as loan and against that he has paid back a sum of  Rs.1,95,000/- to the respondent herein on Dhanteras.  This is evident from the affidavit of  one Geeta Shankar Sheety filed by the appellant.   Therefore, it is an admitted position  that a sum of Rs.55,000/- is due to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.  13.     However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that  the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the High Court and on so deposit, he  will be permitted to defend the suits.  Accordingly, we modify the order dated 02.12.1996  of the learned Single Judge.  Since the appellant preferred appeals before the Division  Bench against the order dated 02.12.1996 passed by the  learned Single Judge and the  present appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.12.1997 passed by  the Division Bench of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the judgment and decree  dated 27.7.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge also need to be set aside.  Consequently, we modify the order dated 02.12.1996 of the learned single Judge and set  aside the judgment and decree dated 27.7.1998 as also the judgment and order dated  11.12.1997 of the Division Bench of the High Court and direct that the appellant shall  deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- before the High Court within a period of one month from  today and on the amount of Rs.50,000/- being so deposited, the appellant-defendant shall  be allowed to defend both the suits before the Trial Court.  After deposit of Rs.50,000/- by   the appellant, as directed by us, the Trial Court shall proceed with the suits in accordance   with law.  Since the suits are old, we request the Trial Court to expedite hearing of the  suits. 14.     The appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.  No order as  to costs.