IN THE COURT OF XXX; LD. CIVIL JUDGE; KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI.

CIVIL SUIT NO………

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXX                                       …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXX                                       ... DEFENDANT

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 READ WITH  SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT / DEFENDANT FOR DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1.       That the plaintiff has filed the present suit against defendants no.1 and 2 in which the answering defendant is the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.2 was East Delhi Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff just filing the after the two days of suit filed the fresh amended memo of parties in which deleted the name of the defendant no.2.

2.      That the plaintiff filed the present suit for Mandatory Injunction and Recovery of Damages on the basis of claiming to be the owner of second and third floor half share in the plot of land i.e. property bearing No. xxx, area measuring 95 sq. yards out of Khasra No. xxx, situated at Village Xxx @xxx in the Abadi of xxxx , on the basis of Will executed by her grandmother Late xxx.

3.      That as per the averment contained in the plaint filed by the plaintiff that the said property was purchased by Xxx and in respect of the said property of Will executed in favour of the plaintiff namely Xxx who is claiming to be the grandson of deceased Xxx and after the death of Xxx the plaintiff became the owner of the said property.

4.      It is admitted that the plaintiff himself stated in his plaint that before purchasing the property by her grandmother the property was duly inspected and after seeing the condition of the property same was purchased by her grandmother and according to the plaintiff that the basement as well as the shop was earlier exists in the property.

5.       That the plaintiff properly executed the sale deed with the defendant and as per the recital of the sale deed nowhere its mentioned that the defendant would demolish the shop as that has been constructed at ground floor only was constructed to the purpose to keep the building material and as well as the basement would be closed if in future any seepage starts in the basement.

6.      It is submitted that the present suit was filed on the basis of the verbal assurances as claimed by the plaintiff apart from the recital of the sale deed in which no such condition nowhere mentioned in the sale deed and the present is filed totally on the basis of imaginary and self created false facts which were never in existence the plaintiff filed the present suit only in order to harass the defendant on the issue of the parking area as well as in order to not pay the maintenance charges of the building.

7.       That as per the mandate and law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble High Courts according to the Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act where an registered agreement executed between the parties in that eventuality no party can take a separate plea / condition out of the recital of the registered agreement. Therefore, the present case is being filed on the total false hood created by the plaintiff in order to grab the maximum area of the parking as well the in order to not pay the maintenance charges for which the plaintiff is liable since the date of purchasing of the said property. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed in the absence of devoid merits and no cause of action has ever arisen to filing the present suit.

8.      That it is submitted the said property was purchased by the plaintiff’s grandmother as a diligent buyer according to the Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act the said property was purchased after due diligence / precautions adopted by the plaintiff, so question of removing the proper constructed shop at the ground floor as same is situated in the commercial area as well as the basement there no seepage exists as alleged by the plaintiff only in order to take the undue advantage as well as extort the money from the defendant.

9.      It is submitted that the plaintiff’s grandmother was fully aware where she purchase the property already there one shop is exists as well as the basement and after inspecting and accepting everything the plaintiff’s grandmother purchase the said property, so question of removing the shop as well as to close the basement area does not arise at all.

10.     That it is submitted the present suit has been filed on 16.07.2016 with arraying the East Delhi Municipal Corporation as a defendant no.2 and again on 18.07.2016 the plaintiff filed the amended memo of parties deleting the name of defendant no.2 from the array of the party without moving any application of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC which was required for changing the name in the memo of parties as well as the further permission to file the amended suit with the amendment to delete the relief from the defendant no.2 therefore in the absence of the proper application as well as amended suit the suit is liable to be dismissed with the heavy costs.

PRAYER

In view of the facts and circumstances explained hereinabove it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may allow the present application and dismissed the present suit in the interest of justice.

APPLICANT / DEFENDANT

THROUGH

PLACE: DELHI

DATE: