Bombay High Court
WP/7846/2026 of NANDLAL KANHAIYALAL ALWANI Vs SAYYAD PARVEZ RIZVI SAYYAD FARID RIZVI AND ANR. on 12 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(1) 36 wp 7846-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7846 OF 2026 Nandlal Kanhaiyalal Alwani VERSUS Sayyad Parvez Rizvi Sayyad Farid Rizvi And Anr. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.S. Kukreja, Advocate for petitioner.
CORAM :
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 12.10.2026 Heard Mr. Kukreja, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petition impugn order passed below Exhibit 21 in Summary Civil Suit No. 99 of 2022 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur. By way of impugned order, the Trial Court has directed a conditional leave to defend with a condition that the defendant No.1 to deposit an amount of Rs 10 lakhs before the Court within six weeks from the date of order or furnishing a bank guarantee. It is the primary contention of Mr. Kukreja that unconditional leave ought to have been granted, looking at the defence raised before the Court. However, after going to the impugning order, more particularly, in paragraph No. 9 thereof, the defendant i.e. the present petitioner has admitted the receipt of certain amount as suggested by the plaintiff. He however has denied the nature, purpose and
(2) 36 wp 7846-2026 legal consequences of such transaction. The Trial Court has rightly observed and came to a conclusion that the very nature, purpose or the legal consequences of transaction between the parties inter se in the matter would require the evidence.
3. After going through the impugning order, I find no jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. The petition is therefore rejected. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Jayashree.. Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 15/10/2026 11:16:48