IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE;

NEW DELHI DIST.; XXXXXXX COURTS,

NEW DELHI.

CIVIL SUIT NO. _____ OF 20___.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXXXXXXX                                                     : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXXXX& ANR.                                          : DEFENDANTS

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NO.2 TO THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS :-

1.       That the present application is liable to be dismissed as the relief claimed in the plaint and in the application under reply are the same and in case the relief sought in the present application is granted, the said would amount to decreeing the suit.

2.       That the application under reply as laid is not maintainable as the same lacks essential ingredient for filing the present application i.e. the averment with respect to irreparable loss to the plaintiff in case of non-grant of the relief claimed in the application under reply.

REPLY ON MERITS :-

1.       That the contents of para 1 of the application are matter of record, need no reply. However, the answering defendant has filed its detailed written statement and the contents of the same are true and correct to the knowledge of the defendant. The same may kindly be read as an integral part of this reply as the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

2.       That the contents of para 2 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that in terms of the said agreement the said property was to be constructed up-till the second floor and the owner was entitled to the basement measuring approx. 600 Sq. Ft. Ground Floor with front and rear set back, open terrace over and above the second floor, drive way (adjoining property no.31), use of common areas and proportionate undivided. Indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the said property. It is further denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the second floor and he has come to know that Mr.XXXXXXXX , director of XXXXXXX Pvt. Ltd. has purchased the share of the erstwhile owner. It is further denied that the said purchasers have however, purchased the said share in piece-meals thereby affecting the very nature of the property in question. It is further denied that the said property was to be impartible in nature and could not have been purchased in piece­meals. It is further denied that the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of XXXXXXXXXX Pvt. Ltd- mentions/ defines the share of the purchaser as 20% indivisible undivided rights, itself demystifies the malicious act done during the registry of the terrace portion. The same may kindly be read as an integral part of this reply as the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

3.       That the contents of para 3 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that such action of the purchasers/defendant no.2 apart from being invalid also puts the undersigned in a detrimental situation as the share of the undersigned in the ground underneath the building of the property is affected by their shares in the properly. It is further denied that having said that the purchaser was completely aware of the limitations set forth in the collaboration agreement and that he was also aware that he was bound by the same. It is further denied that a well-founded law that no one can claim unjust enrichment. It is further denied that even as per the collaboration agreement the total floor area ratio sanctioned on the said plot of land by the MCD has been equally divided between all the floors i.e., ground, first and second floor and therefore by specifically mentioning and conveying 20% share as stated herein above, the defendant no.2 has tried to purchase rights in the property more than he could. It is further denied that the defendant no.2 has intentionally made an invalid and void deed at the back of the plaintiff and by misleading the defendant no.1 in order to increase his share in the property and thereby decreasing the share of the plaintiff in the said property. It is further denied that the execution of both the sale deeds in favour of the defendant no. 2 have detrimentally affected the plaintiff. The same may kindly be read as an integral part of this reply as the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

4.       That the contents of para 4 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the plaintiff has come to know from reliable sources that the defendant no.2 is in a bid to dispose of a portion of the said impartible property and is inclined to transfer /alienate the share in the property as wrongly/ inadvertently mentioned in the impugned sale deeds. It is further denied that although the plaintiff tried to convince the defendant no.2 not to do so, as it cannot be done in the present situation, however no heed has been paid. The same may kindly be read as an integral part of this reply as the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

5.       That the contents of para 5 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff has a good prima facie case in her favour and he is likely to succeed in this case. The plaintiff has no case what to talk of a good prima facie case. However, the answering defendants have filed its detailed written statement and the contents of the same are true and correct to the knowledge of the defendants. The same may kindly be read as an integral part of this reply as the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

6.       That the contents of para 6 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the balance of convenience is also lies in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. It is further denied that the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money if the defendant is not restrained from taking any detrimental action against suit property without following due process of Law. However, the answering defendants have filed its detailed written statement and the contents of the same are true and correct to the knowledge of the defendants. The same may kindly be read as an integral part of this reply as the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

That the prayer clauses of the application are redundant and irrelevant to the subject suit as explained earlier and therefore is denied in its entirety. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief claimed for.

PRAYER :-

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the application of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs in favour of the answering defendant and against the plaintiff for dragging the answering defendant in the frivolous litigation, in the interest of justice, equity and circumstances of the case.

Pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and may pass in favour of the answering defendant, in the interest of justice.

It is prayed accordingly.

DELHI                                                        DEFENDANT NO. 2

DATED:                         THROUGH

XXXXXXX

 (Advocate)

Counsel for Defendant No.2

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE;

NEW DELHI DIST.; XXXXXXXXX COURTS,

NEW DELHI.

CIVIL SUIT NO. _____ OF 2024.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                                      : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXX XXXXXX& ANR.                              : DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Sh.___________, aged about ___ years, Director of M/s. XXXXXXX Pvt. Ltd., having office at________________, New Delhi-110027, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-

1.       That I am the Director of the defendant No.2 Company in the above noted matter and am well conversant with the facts of the case and am also competent to swear the present affidavit.

2.       That the contents of accompanying reply to application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC have been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the same have been read over and explained to me in my vernacular and the same may be read as part & parcel of this affidavit, which are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

          Verified at Delhi on this ____, day of April, 2024, that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part of thereof is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT