IN THE COURT OF SH.XXXX XXXXX, LD. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXXXXXXXXXX                                          : PLANTIFF

VERSUS.

XXXXXXXXXXXX &ORS                          :DEFENDANTS      

I N D E X

DEFENDANT

DELHI                         THROUGH

DATED

(XXXXXXXXX)

                     COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

       Off: XXXXXXXXXXXX

NEW DELHI -1100_

IN THE COURT OF SH. XXXXXXXX, LD. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXXXXXXXXXX                                          : PLANTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXXXXXXXX&ORS                             :DEFENDANTS  

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS UNDER ORDER 37 RULE 3(5) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SEEKING LEAVE TO DEFEND OF THE CAPTIONED SUIT.

MOST REPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.          That the Defendants have received the application for summons for judgment in the aforesaid case by courier, however there is no notice/summon/direction of this Hon’ble Court to file leave to defend within 10 days, but this leave to defend is file as abundant caution and the same is being filed within the prescribed period.

2.          That outset it is submitted that the Defendant have been served with the summons, however plaint are illegible and it seems to be incomplete and some of the annexure are missing and some of them are dim which have been supplied to the Defendant. That the defendants are filing the leave to defend before this Hon’ble Court on the basis of the documents supplied by the plaintiff and defendants reserves their right to file additional application for leave to defend, when all the legible copies of the annexure and the Plaint will be supplied by the Plaintiff.

3.          That the defendants are filing the leave to defend before this Hon’ble Court on the basis of the documents supplied by the Plaintiff and the defendants reserves their right to file additional application for leave to defend.

4.          The present Suit under reply projects and frescoes a scenario which is not only disturbing but also has the potentiality to create a stir compelling one to ponder in a perturbed state how some unscrupulous, unprincipled and deviant suit can ingeniously and innovatively design in a nonchalant manner to knock at the doors of the Court.

5.          That by the Present Suit has filed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff considers this Hon’ble Court as a laboratory where multifarious experiments can take place and such skillful persons can adroitly abuse the process of the Court at their own will and desire by painting a canvas of agony by assiduous assertions made in the suit though the real intention is to harass the Answering Defendant.

6.          That it is further submitted that the basic crux to the effect of filing and causing bewilderment to this Hon’ble Court and the points which are presented before this Hon’ble Court is based on wrong facts and conjectures. It is further submitted that as per the content of the Summons for Judgment as provided, the same has been given authenticity is by Mr. XXXXX XXXX, who is the business leader of the Plaintiff Company. However the Plaintiff Company is the company incorporated under the provision of the Companies Act and having their registered office at XXXXXXXX which is beyond the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff Company is acting through its Authorized Representative/Business Leader namely Mr XXXXXXXXXX and in the affidavit annexed along with the Summons for Judgment discloses his personal address i.e the Resident Address and further Mr. XXXXXXX is the Business Leader of XXXXXXXX and not the company as mentioned as Plaintiff in the array of parties.

7.          Further the Summons for Judgment or the Amended Memo of Parties do not discloses the correct name of the Defendant Company as such there is no privity of contract between the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company as the correct name of the Defendant Company is XXXXXX XXXXX Pvt Limited Company.

8.          It is further submitted that as per the perusal of the Memo of Parties as and how filed along with the Summons of Judgment and the Suit, it clearly reflects that the Registered Office of the Plaintiff Company is in Surat and other office address is in Mumbai whereas the Address mentioned of the Defendant Company is at Noida, so apart from the resident address of the alleged Representative of the Plaintiff Company, not a single document pertains to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted by the Defendant Company that the Residential address of the Person / Employees of the Company would not be relevant consideration for vesting territorial jurisdiction at the Court’s of New Delhi. It is further submitted that even the averments also do not demonstrate as to how would this court be vested with the territorial jurisdiction for entertaining the suit which is just based on false pleas and averments.

9.          It is further submitted that the summons for judgment as received do not disclose the proper cause of action and the same has been filed on wrong and absolutely incorrect facts just in order to mislead this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted as per the content of the Paragraph pertaining to the Cause of Action as alleged by the Plaintiff in his summons for judgment is limited to the fact on the purchase order which was dated as 11.01.2012 and opened Irrevocable Letter of Credit dated 14.02.2012 and further arose on 25.08.2012 and thereafter on 08.11.2012. it is further submitted as per the alleged averments made by the Plaintiff in his suit under Order 37, the Limitation period will commenced from the date when the money becomes due on date goods were supplied which is 14.02.2012 as alleged by the Plaintiff and subsequently as per the Limitation Act, the limitation as on the above mentioned dated the account was demanded as alleged by the Plaintiff Company, therefore taking the provision of the same into account this Suit of the Plaintiff is barred by the Sections of the Limitation Act and hence the present suit of the Plaintiff is void ab intio.

10.      Further Cause of Action has to be taken into considerations as to the factual situation that gives rise to an enforceable claim if any or if not and it must take into consideration the entire averments contained in the Plaint and test whether, on being read collectively, they constitute a bundle of facts that form the basis of instituting of the suit.

11.        It is further submitted that the position of law that clearly emerges from the above mentioned para is that the expression Cause of Action means and includes the circumstance resulting in breach of right or immediate occasions for the party to react. The said expression shall take in its fold the whole bundle of material facts which a party must prove in order to succeed.

12.        It is further submitted that for determining as to whether a particular fact constitutes a cause of action would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and while considering the facts averred, the Court has to consider the substance of the matter and not the form. It is further submitted that simply because a miniscule part of cause of action arises in the suit then the same cannot be taken into consideration and such suit ought to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Court straightaway.

13.        It Is further submitted that as per the settled law qua Cause of Action which is generally understood in civil proceedings as every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. It is the bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the Plaintiff a right to relief against the Defendant. Each and every fact pleaded in the suit does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court’s territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. 

14.        It is further submitted that the present Jurisdiction to try the present suit is not just and proper, as per the content of the Paragraph that the Registered Address of the Defendant is in New Delhi is false and it can be evident from the fact that the summons for judgment as well as the address which is mentioned on the Memo of Parties clearly reflect the Registered office of the Defendant Company at Noida and the Plaintiff has only filed the present memo of Parties wherein No mention of Delhi address of the Defendant Company is visible. So just in order to obtain a decree either by hook or crook the Plaintiff has mislead this Hon’ble Court on account of Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court to try out the case.

15.        It is further submitted that it is quite evident that neither the registered office nor the corporate office of the Plaintiff is situated in Delhi and similar with the Defendant as the Registered Office of the Defendant Company is not situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff to overcome the objection of the territorial jurisdiction, the resident address of the authorized Representative and that too of some other sister concern company of the Plaintiff Company, who has no relationship or privy with the answering Defendant is mentioned and that is the only sole ground with the Plaintiff Company to file the suit before this Hon’ble Court.

16.      In Kensoft Infotech Ltd. v. R.S. Krishnaswami, 146 (2008) DLT 657, the principal office of the Defendant company was in Mumbai. It was found on facts that none of the Defendants resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain within the jurisdiction of the court at Delhi. Defendant No.3 had a branch office at New Delhi along with twenty-three other branch offices all over the country. A reference was made to the judgments in Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711 and State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, where it was held that the expression "cause of action" connotes a bundle of facts which gives the Plaintiff a right to relief against the Defendant, and mere service of notice at the registered office of a company does not give rise to a cause of action within that territory unless service of such notice was an integral part of the cause of action. It was noticed that the cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. It was held that the location of the subordinate office of the Defendant No.3 at Delhi ipso facto cannot vest the court with territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit. Even the leave of the court to sue the Defendants at New Delhi as envisaged by Section 20(b) CPC had not been sought

17.        Further the Plaintiff alleges that the invoices was been issued from time to time for the same, forgetting the fact that the suit based on invoices can never be maintainable under the provision of Order 37 C.P.C

18.      That Further it is mentioned that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as Letter of credit is unconditional obligation undertaken by banker who has issued the letter of credit to pay the beneficiary. There is no contract between the beneficiary and the bankers who issue the letter of credit.

19.      In Federal Bank v. V.M. Jog Engineering, it was observed by the Supreme Court in para 56 that "the contract of the Bank guarantee or the Letter of Credit is independent of the main contract between the seller and the buyer". Relying on this observation, it is sought to be contended that there is no privity of contract between the Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff since the claim was being made against the Defendant No.1 in relation to a contract that the Plaintiff had with Defendant No.2 and Promod S.A., which is not even a party to the suit. Accordingly it is contended that Defendant No.1 is not a proper party to this suit. A reference has been made to the arbitration proceedings arising out of a suit filed by the Plaintiff in which the Plaintiff chose to make all the other parties as co-Defendants. It is contended that the present transaction is no different from that which forms the subject matter of the said suit where the dispute has ultimately been referred to arbitration. Therefore the suit is bad for non-joinder of those parties.

20.      Letter of credit is also different from a guarantee and is, therefore, not covered under Order XXXVII(2) (iii).Suits that can be filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure are those which are based upon Bills of Exchange, Hundi, a liquidated demand, or a written contract, or a guarantee. A suit by the beneficiary of a letter of credit cannot be filed under Order XXXVII, as there is no contract between the beneficiary of the letter of credit and the issuing banker.

21.      There being no contract between the beneficiary plaintiff and the bankers defendant, Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure can have no application.

22.      It is further submitted that The plaintiff has not filed any affidavit in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act,1872 in order to authenticate the veracity of the electronic records.

23.        It is further submitted that as per the settled law that In case of South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., JT 1996 (3) S.C. 656, the Supreme Court held that merely by the fact that the Bank Guarantee was executed in Delhi and were transmitted to Bombay from Delhi, it will not constitute a cause of action to Delhi Courts. Similar was the view of the Division Bench of this Court in DLF Industries Limited Vs. ABN Amro Bank and others, 2000(3)Arb. LR 600 (Delhi). The judgments in these cases apply in full force to the present case.

24.        That it is further submitted that the leave to defendant application is also on the ground that there were quite discrepancies as found in the same services, and the same was communicated to the Plaintiff, and therefore for the discrepancies the defendant was entitled to refuse the payment under the letter of credit. The second fold submission on behalf of the defendant is that admittedly the plaintiff took back the documents for correcting the discrepancies and thereafter represented the documents after expiry of the letter of credit on, and therefore the plaintiff has admitted to the existence of the discrepancies and since after correcting the discrepancies, the documents are represented after expiry of the letter of credit, the plaintiff is hence not entitled to payment under the subject letter of credit. And as per the paras of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank Vs. Bank of India and Others, (1981) 2 SCC 766 and which are stated hereinafter, and on the basis of these paras of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is argued that since banks only deal in documents and since the documents presented in this case were discrepant;; the defendant was entitled to refuse the payment under the letter of credit. The relevant paras of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (supra) which are relied upon are paras 39, 40 and 44 to 46 and these paras read as under:

"39. The relevant authorities uniformly lay down in dealing with commercial letters of credit that the documents tendered by the seller must comply with the terms of the letter of credit, and that the banker owes a duty to the buyer to ensure that the buyer's instructions relative to the documents against which the letter of credit is to be honoured are complied with. The rights of a banker are described in HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND, 4th Edn., vol. 3, para 141 at p. 106 :

Unless documents tendered under a credit are in accordance with those for which the credit calls and which are embodied in the promise of the paying or negotiating banker, the beneficiary cannot claim against the paying banker, and it is the paying banker's duty to refuse payment. The documents must be those called for, and not documents which are almost the same or which will do just as well. The banker is not called upon to know or interpret trade customs and terms. It has been held that where mandate is ambiguous and a paying banker acts in a reasonable way in pursuance of it, he may be protected. But this general rule cannot be stretched so far as to protect a banker who pays against documents describing goods in terms which are similar to, but not exactly the same as, those stipulated in the credit.

The description of the goods in the relative bill of lading must be the same as the description in the letter of credit, that is, the goods themselves must in each case be described in identical terms, even though the goods differently described in the two documents are, in fact, the same. It is the description of the goods that is all important. The reason for this requirement is stated in Davis' LAW RELATING TO COMMERCIAL LETTERS OF CREDIT, 2nd Edn. p. 76:

It is not only the buyer who faces the risk of dishonesty or sharp practice on the part of the seller. For, in many instances, the banker looks to the goods for reimbursement of the whole or part of the amount he pays under the letter of credit. It is equally to his interests to ensure that such documents are called for by the letter of credit as will result in goods of the contract description being ultimately delivered. The buyer is not compelled to enter into the sales contract nor, is the banker compelled to issue the letter of credit. If either of these contracts is entered into then it is for the buyer and the banker respectively to safeguard themselves by the terms of the contract. Otherwise they must be prepared to bear any ensuing loss.

But the liability thus imposed on the issuing banker carries with it a corresponding right that the seller shall, on his part, comply with the terms of the letter of credit and the seller's obligations have been construed as strictly as those of the banker.

We have already referred to the statement of law in Halsbury's Laws of England which found a place in PAGET'S LAW OF BANKING, 8th Edn. p. 648, and we may at the risk of repetition reproduce the same, to the effect:

Unless documents tendered under a credit are in accordance with those for which the credit calls and which are embodied in the promise of the intermediary or issuing banker, the beneficiary cannot claim against him; and it is the banker's duty to refuse payment. The documents must be those called for and not documents which are almost the same or which seem to do just as well.

40. In the light of these principles, the rule is well established that a bank issuing or confirming a letter of credit is not concerned with the underlying contract between the buyer and seller. Duties of a bank under a letter of credit are created by the document itself, but in any case it has the power and is subject to the limitations which are given or imposed by it, in the absence of the appropriate provisions in the letter of credit.

44. The appellant was under a duty to its constituent, the Bihar Corporation, to scrutinize the documents, and could not be compelled to make payment particularly when the description in the documents did not tally with that in the letter of credit. It was fully entitled to exercise its judgment for its own protection. When the appellant against the first lot of 20 documents refused to make payment except 'under reserve' and against the second lot of 27 documents even 'under reserve' the remedy of the plaintiffs was to approach the 'openers', i.e., Bihar Corporation, to instruct the appellant to effect a change in the description of the goods from 'Sizola Brand Pure Mustard Oil' to Sizola Brand Pure Mustard Oil "Unrefined" in the letter of credit. Instead of adopting that course, the irregularity in the description in documents tendered for payment was sought to be got over by the plaintiffs by instructing their bankers, the Bank of India, to execute a letter of guarantee or indemnity. When the bills of exchange tendered to the Bihar Corporation were dishonoured when presented on August 3, 1978, the legal consequences must follow as between the appellant and the Bank of India. There was the inevitable chain of events which could not be prevented by the grant of an injunction.

45. The appellant presumably knew little or nothing about mustard oil. Bankers are not dealers in mustard oil in such a case as this, but dealers in documents only. The appellant as the issuing bank was presented with documents and asked to pay a very large sum of money in exchange for them. Its duty was not to go out and determine by physical examination of the consignments, or employment of experts, whether the goods actually conformed to the contracts between the buyer and the seller, nor even determine either from its own or expert advice whether the documents called for the goods which the buyer would be bound to accept. The banker knows only the letter of credit which is the only authority to act, and the documents which are presented under it. If these documents conform to the letter of credit, he is bound to pay. If not, he is equally not bound to pay. The letter of credit called for 'Sizola Brand Pure Mustard Oil' while the railway receipts carried the description "Siloza Brand Pure Mustard Oil 'Unrefined' and it was not within the province of the appellant to say that the latter description meant identically the same thing as the former.

46. In the action against a purchaser for reimbursement, it is only necessary to prove that the goods tendered were the goods purchased, no matter how described, i.e., the purchaser was offered that which he had contracted for, while in such a case as this, in an action by the beneficiary against the issuing bank, it makes no difference whether the goods tendered were in fact identical to the goods purchased, the only question being : Did the documents conform to the letter of credit?"

25.      It is specifically argued by referring to Articles 14(d) & (f) of the UCP 600 that minor discrepancies in important documents being commercial invoice, transport document/bill of lading and an insurance contract has to be taken very material whereas minor discrepancies in other documents are not to be treated as that relevant for the issuing bank to refuse payment. Relying upon sub-Article (f) of Article 14 of the UCP 600 alongwith its sub-Article (d), it is further argued by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff that there should be a practical understanding of the contents of the documents other than the invoice, bill of lading and insurance contract and that only the latter documents have to be read very strictly with respect to they being in conformity with the requirements of the documents to be presented under the letter of credit for they not having any discrepancies. Article 14 of the UCP 600 relied upon is reproduced as under:

"Article 14 Standard for Examination of Documents

a. A nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, and the issuing bank must examine a presentation to determine, on the basis of the documents alone, whether or not the documents appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation.

b. A nominated bank acting on its nomination, a confirming bank, if any, and the issuing bank shall each have a maximum of five banking days following the day of presentation to determine if a presentation is complying. This period is not curtailed or otherwise affected by the occurrence on or after the date of presentation of any expiry date or last day for presentation.

c. A presentation including one or more original transport documents subject to articles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 or 25 must be made by or on behalf of the beneficiary not later than 21 calendar days after the date of shipment as described in these rules, but in any event not later than the expiry date of the credit.

26.      It is further submitted that the Plaintiff has committed fraud by not shipping the full quantity of the goods as well as by shipping substandard goods.

27.      Because as per Judgment of Justice Valmiki J Mehta in IFCI Factors Ltd. Versus Maven Industries Ltd. &Ors. It was held that

“It is trite, and as observed in the aforesaid three orders / judgments, that Order XXXVII CPC is a unique departure from the ordinary principles of natural justice wherein a defendant has an automatic right to defend the suit. By Order XXXVII CPC, exceptions have been carved out whereby defendant cannot defend the suit as a matter of right as is done in other cases and this is because ex facie or at least prima facie the specific liability of a defendant in terms of a liquidated amount is shown to CS(OS) No.2950/2015 Page 29 of 36 clearly exist from a written contract containing the liquidated amount or from a dishonoured bill of exchange or a cheque. Once there are such documents, being a written contract containing liquidated amount or a dishonoured bill of exchange or a cheque, which by themselves without any further fact(s) or document(s) required to be pleaded and proved, shows clearly the liability of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff as existing, it is for this reason that filing of such suits under Order XXXVII CPC are allowed and defendant who is otherwise ex facie or prima facie liable by virtue of the written document is asked to seek leave to defend to contest the suit. Obviously an exception from the normal procedure and the requirement of following the principles of natural justice when it exists, the same has to be necessarily construed within the strict terms of the requirements contained in Order XXXVII CPC. Order XXXVII CPC is not intended to allow parties to extend the scope of Order XXXVII CPC so as to allow filing of the suits when amounts which are claimed in the suit do not directly spring and arise from the written document or the dishonourd bill of exchange or cheque. Putting it in other words, the cause of action in the suit for recovery of money which is filed under Order XXXVII CPC concludes as regards the averments on the existence of the cause of action to the written document containing the liquidated amount or the dishonoured bill CS(OS) No.2950/2015 Page 30 of 36 of exchange or cheque. If in the suit plaint, besides the averments of the cause of action of the written contract containing the specific liquidated amount which is specifically claimed in the suit, necessary further facts, averments and cause of action has to be pleaded for the plaintiff to show the claim to the amount claimed in the suit, then, such a suit is not based only on the written document only or the dishonoured bill of exchange or cheque only because other facts are to be established to show the liability of the defendant claimed in the suit, and thus such a suit was not intended by the legislature to be filed under Order XXXVII CPC. Accordingly, therefore once the suit amount which is claimed in the suit is not the amount which directly arises in terms of the liquidated amount stated in the written document or a dishonoured bill of exchange or a cheque, the suit will not be maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC otherwise a large category of cases which were not meant by the legislature to be filed under Order XXXVII CPC will be sought to be filed and entertained under Order XXXVII CPC.”

28.      That the Plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands, hence the Plaintiff is not entitled to any kind of relief by way of its present suit.

29.      It is further submitted by the Defendant Company that as per the accounts which has been maintained by the Defendant, the Defendant do not have any kind of liability as alleged by the Plaintiff in this suit and the Amount claimed by the Plaintiff is just one imaginary amount and the Plaintiff has failed to show its statement of Accounts to authenticate the same. 

30.      That the Plaintiff is also guilty of concealment facts relating to material issues as such the Plaintiff are not entitled for any kind of relief as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

31.      That the applicant /defendant craves leave to defend the said suit on the following grounds and reasons as mentioned herein above

32.      That it is pertinent to mention here that the Plaintiff is playing the fraud to get the decree by hook or crook from the very beginning itself. That the Defendants may prove that the Plaintiff is guilty of concealment of material facts, misrepresentation and playing fraud upon the Court in case the Defendant is allowed to contest the case. That Plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands under the facts and circumstances described herein above hence the Plaintiff is not entitled to any kind of relief by way of present suit. The Suit is liable to be thrown out as per various precedents of various courts.

33.      It is therefore, humbly prayed that the present application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 Sub Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure moved by the Defendant for leave to defend may please be allowed unconditionally in the interest of justice, equity and fair play giving an opportunity/ leave to the defendants unconditionally to contest the suit.

34.      That it is further submitted that the suit Is not maintainable under Order 37 Rule 2 as that various relief which cannot fall within the ambit of Order 37 Rule 2 have been claimed in the suit.

35.      That there are number of triable issues, a good defense to the suit available with the Defendant and as such the Defendants are entitled for unconditional leave to defend the present suit the present suit is based on misconception of law having no merit, a bundle of lies and misrepresentations followed by the concealment tainted with fraud.

36.      That the Defendant urges before this Hon’ble Court that appropriate direction may be issued to the Plaintiff to file the aforesaid legible copies along with the documents which can suggest the Plaintiff case in lieu of Section 20(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

37.      That the present suit is not maintainable under order 37 of the code of civil procedure has the amount claimed by the plaintiff is not the fixed amount and plaintiff has claimed interest of 24%.

38.      It is therefore humbly prayed that the present application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 Sub Rule 5 read with section 151 of CPC moved by the Defendants may pleased to be allowed unconditionally in the interest of justice, equity and fair play along giving an opportunity / leave to defend to the Defendant unconditionally to contest the suit.

PRAYER-:

It is therefore respectfully prayed that this facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice this Hon’ble Court may kindly graciously be pleased to

A.    Allow the instant application and suit may be declared as not maintainable under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure.

B.    In the alternative leave to defend be granted to the Defendants unconditionally in the interest of justice.

C.    Any other order/relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the matter in favour of defendants

It is prayed accordingly.

DEFENDANT

DELHI                         THROUGH

DATED

(XXXXXXXXXXXX)

                     COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

       Off:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, NEW DELHI -1100__

IN THE COURT OF SH. XXXXXXXXX, LD. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXXXXXXXXXX                                           : PLANTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXXX XXXXXX&ORS                          :DEFENDANTS    

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr.XXXXXX , AR of XXXXXXXX Ltd., having its registered office at XXXX, Sector-XXX , Noida, 201301, presently at New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1.    That I am the AR of Defendant No. 1 Company in the above noted matter and I am competent to depose by way of this affidavit in the aforesaid capacity.

2.    That the accompanying cause of appearance under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has been drafted under my instructions, which has been read and understood by me and I say that the contents of the same are true and correct.

3.    That the contents of paras of the appearance are true on the basis of the records of the petition and believed to be correct.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

       Verified at Delhi on this ____, day of May, 2017 that the contents of para 1 to 3 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT