JUDGMENT A.S. Chandurkar, J. (Oral) - The petitioners, who are the original defendants are aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Court on the application for stay preferred by them and the order by which the prayer for stay has been granted subject to imposing conditions. 2. The respondent no.l is the original plaintiff, who had filed a summary suit for recovery of amounts that were mentioned in a cheque issued on behalf of the petitioners on 5.3.2012. In that suit, the petitioners as defendants sought leave to defend the said summary suit. The leave to defend the suit was granted by the trial court subject to the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs. 27,33,850/. This order was subjected to challenge but the same failed as the petitioners did not comply with the aforesaid condition. They were not permitted to put forth their defence. Ultimately, the Trial Court by its judgment dated 6.3.2017 decreed the suit. Being aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal and along with that appeal an application for grant of stay was filed. The Appellate Court by the impugned order dated 12.10.2017 stayed the execution of the decree by imposing a condition that the decretal amount to be deposited in the Court. Being aggrieved by imposition of that condition the said order has been challenged in the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire basis for filing the summary suit was misconceived in view of the fact that the complaint filed by the original plaintiff under the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been dismissed by the learned Magistrate. It was the case of the petitioners that the cheque in question was not drawn by the petitioners and therefore, there was no liability on its part to make any payment. This fact was brought on record in the summary suit, but the trial court did not give much importance to the same. Referring to the admissions of the original plaintiff in his deposition in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 it was submitted that a case for grant of stay had been made out. In view of disputed cheque, the appellate Court could not have imposed any condition while granting stay. Referring to the admissions of the original plaintiff in his deposition in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 it was submitted that a case for grant of stay had been made out. In view of disputed cheque, the appellate Court could not have imposed any condition while granting stay. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Vinod Kumar Saboo vs. Sudarshan Vishwanath Malpani and anr. reported in 2017 (6) Mh.L.J 359 . ii) Asmi Jewellery India Ltd. vs. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. reported in 2015 (6) ALL MR 5 iii) Union of India and others vs. Ramesh Gandhi reported in (2012) (1) SCC 476 iv) Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala and anr. Reported in AIR 2006 SC 3028 v) State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. vs. T.Suryachandra Rao reported in AIR 2005 SC 3110 vi) Ramchandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and ors. Reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319 vii) S.P. Chengal Varaya Naidu (dead) by Lrs, vs. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. And ors. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 4. It was therefore prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent original plaintiff supported the impugned order. According to him as the defendants were granted leave to defend the suit by imposing the conditions and those conditions had not been followed, it was to be assumed that the claim of the plaintiff was admitted. Relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench in the matter of D.Shanlal vs. Bank of Maharashtra reported in 1988 Mh.L.J. 956 it was submitted that in an appeal arising out of a summary suit where leave is deemed to have been refused, the defendant cannot be permitted to challenge that decree on merits. It was therefore, submitted that the Appellate Court did not commit any error in imposing those conditions as the condition for grant of stay. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decisions in the matter of A.B and U. Communication Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai vs. Jitu Shah reported in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J 579 and in the matter of K.R.Patel vs. M.M. Developers reported in 2015 (3) Mh.L.J 260 . 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have perused the documents placed on record. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have perused the documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that the Trial Court had granted leave to the petitioners herein to defend the summary suit. By order dated 3.2.2015 such leave was granted subject to depositing amount of Rs. 27,33,850/. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 987 of 2015 but the said Writ Petition was dismissed. That order was further not interfered with by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners failed to comply with the directions issued for the purpose of seeking leave to defend the suit. In a situation of this nature, the Division Bench in D.Shanlal vs. Bank of Maharasthra (Supra) has held that when the defendant fails to comply with the conditional order granting leave, the said defendant is precluded from further contesting the claim of the plaintiff. The facts stated in the plaint must be deemed to have been admitted by the defendant. When an appeal is filed against a decree of such nature scope thereof is limited and the finality attached to the conditional order precludes the defendant from assailing the decree on merits. In the light of this law, it is clear that there is limited scope for the petitioners to contend that the judgment passed in the summary suit is liable to be set aside on the ground that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 had been dismissed. The other contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the conduct of the plaintiff was vitiated on account of fraud in view of the fact that the signatures on the cheque in question were disputed, the same is a matter that is required to be urged when the appeal is heard. At this interlocutory stage, when admittedly, the petitioners have failed to comply with the conditions imposed while granting conditional leave, the direction issued by the appellate court of granting stay subject to depositing the decretal amount cannot be faulted. On that count, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are clearly distinguishable. 7. I therefore, find that there is no case made out, to interfere in writ jurisdiction. On that count, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are clearly distinguishable. 7. I therefore, find that there is no case made out, to interfere in writ jurisdiction. By clarifying that the observations made in this order are restricted to the adjudication of the issues raised in the present writ petition and by further observing that the appeal shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law, the writ petition stands dismissed with no orders as to costs.