Quick Contact
- Office No.101, Himland House, Commercial Complex,Karampura, Delhi-110015, India
- 8171974067
- info@lawvs.com
Copyright ©2025 Lawvs.com | All Rights Reserved
IN
THE HON’BLE COURT Of x ; LD. ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE; FAMILY COURT, ROHINI COURT;
DELHI.
MISC.
APPLICATION NO. ______ OF 2015.
IN
MT.
CASE NO..
IN THE MATTER OF :-
xxxxxxxxx : APPLICANT
VERSUS
xxxxxxxxx :
RESPONDENT
REPLY TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY
COMPLAINANT / APPLICANT FOR SEEKING NECESSARY ORDER AND DIRECTION FOR
RESTORATION OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED MATTER TO ITS ORIGINAL FILE NUMBER.
MOST
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. The
application moved by the applicant / complainant before this Hon’ble Court by
suppressing the material facts as such present application is liable to be
dismissed.
2. That
post withdrawal of the aforesaid proceeding by the applicant, in terms of the
settlement arrived between the parties, applicant remained together for a
period and in terms of the settlement in lieu of maintenance, permanent
alimony, all disputes arising out of the marriage the mother (deceased) of the
respondent had executed a gift deed of the property bearing No. Xxxxx, Delhi
jointly in favour of applicant as well as the respondent to the extent of 50%
of the property.
3. In
terms of the settlement applicant had to withdraw all the litigation as well as
to give consent for quashing of the FIR which was registered at the instance of
applicant, however during course of the proceeding before the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi for quashing of the FIR, applicant resiled from her xxxxxment
resulting the petition was disposed off without passing any order qua the
quashing.
4. It
is most humbly submitted that the present applicant whereby concealing the
factum of settlement of all her claim qua the maintenance, alimony and other
disputes arising out of the marriage and about the execution of gift deed in her
favour in respect of 25% share of the property as mentioned above, applicant
has moved this application and same is liable to be dismissed on this ground
alone and applicant cannot seek maintenance unless applicant revokes the gift
deed.
5. In
view of the fact that applicant reunited post withdrawal of the aforesaid
proceedings and thereafter, due to resilment of the settlement by the
complainant / applicant, new cause of actions would arise for the filing of fresh
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. rather restoring the earlier petition
which were based upon the earliest cause of action.
6. That
it is further submitted that in view of the judgment as passed by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in a case of x wherein applicant had to furnish an affidavit
along with the application / petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and in the
present case applicant without filing the said affidavit has sought the
restoration which is liable to be refused.
7. That
the case law as relied upon by the applicant in the application for
restoration, there is no dispute but the facts of this case is altogether
different and on the part of the respondent they had complied with terms of the
settlement as such applicant / complainant cannot put the respondent in double
jeopardy as such present application is liable to be dismissed.
8. That
the present case of the applicant does not falls under the preview of
simplicity of restoration rather the application moved by the applicant is to
first convince this Hon’ble Court on the issue of maintainability of the
proceeding post settlement despite compliance on the part of the respondent.
9. That
the orders passed by various courts in the litigations between the parties are
not denied however, rest of the allegations as leveled by the applicant are
denied in toto.
10. In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may please
decide the issue of maintainability of this application firstly at this stage
as in view of the fresh cause of actions with respect to the settlement / reunion
/ alleged new cause of actions.
11. That
it is most humbly submitted that respondent is not liable to pay arrears of the
maintenance as well as maintenance for the period i.e. from the date of withdrawal
of the proceedings till the date of the order which may be passed by this
Hon’ble Court in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances.
12. It
is further submitted that in view of the changed circumstances as well as in
view of the facts that applicant had got gift deed of 25% qua the aforesaid
property, which was executed only by virtue of the settlement arrived between
the applicant as well as the respondent and his family members for the disputes
arising out of the marriage including the issue of the maintenance of the
applicant as well as her daughter, furthermore if this Hon’ble Court holds that
the application moved by the applicant is maintainable then the quantum of the
maintenance is to be decided a fresh post filing of the affidavit of the income
by both the parties in view of the direction passed by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi furthermore, keeping in view of the change of the source of income.
13. That
the FIR as mentioned in the application are false and motivated and the matter
is still under investigation / trial and complainant / applicant used to lodged
false and frivolous complaints against the respondent and his family members.
14. That
the contents of application and prayer clause along with sub paras of the
application are redundant and irrelevant to the subject petition as explained earlier and
therefore is denied in its entirety. The applicant is not entitled for any
relief claimed for.
P
R A Y E R:-
It is, therefore,
most respectfully prayed
that the application of the applicant
may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs in favour of the answering respondent and
against the applicant for dragging the answering respondent in the frivolous
litigation, in the interest of justice, equity and circumstances of the case.
Pass such other order or orders as
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper interest he interest of justice.
DELHI RESPONDENT
THROUGH
DATED
IN
THE HON’BLE COURT OFx ; LD. ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE; FAMILY COURT, ROHINI COURT;
DELHI.
MISC.
APPLICATION NO. ______ OF 2015.
IN
MT.
CASE NO.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
PEARL ARORA :
APPLICANT
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Mr.x, S/o xxx
do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1. That I am the respondent 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 the accompanying reply to the application have been drafted by
my counsel as per my instructions and the contents of the same have been duly
read over and understood by my vernacular language and after fully
understanding the contents of the therein are all true and correct to my
knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
:-
Verified at Delhi on this _____, day
of July, 2016 that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to
my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN
THE HON’BLE COURT OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KAPASHERA, DISTRICT SOUTH WEST,
KAPASHERA, NEW DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
x VS. 1.xx
OBJECTIONS / REPLY FOR AND ON BEHALF
OF DR. MANISH ARORA TO THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE 1st PARTY
THROUGH ITS LEGAL HEIR.
To,
The
Hon’ble Magistrate.
MAY
IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :-
1.
That the second party is filling a short reply /
objections qua the application moved by the one of the legal heir of the 1st
Party, though Second party is keeping his right reserves if this Hon’ble Court
finds that the application moved by the 1st party is maintainable.
2.
The application moved by the First party Is liable
to be dismissed on following grounds :-
A.
That the applicant here in namely Mr. Xxxxxhas not
moved an application for its impleadment as a party to the proceedings ,
further more Mr. Xxxxxhas not disclosed about the details of other legal heirs
of the deceased , if any , of Xxxxx( deceased ).
B.
Mr. Xxxxxdeliberately / intentionally concealed the
factum of on going proceedings before Hon’ble Court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi where in applicant namely Mr.Xxxxxis appearing as one of the
legal heir of the 1st party, more so over, said litigation is only
in respect to the plot which is subject matter of the proceedings pending
before this Hon’ble Court.
C.
Pertinently a contempt proceedings may be instituted
against the applicant namely Mr. Xxxxxwho has moved the present application
despite the fact that a “status quo”
order has been passed by Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari with respect to the
subject land vide order dated 29.05.2001.
D.
In addition to the same, it is further submitted
that 2nd party i.e. applicant has challenged the order passed under
section 145 (1) & 146 (1) of Cr.P.C by this Hon’ble Court before the
Hon’ble Court of District and Session Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and same
was disposed off by the Hon’ble Session Court vide order dated 17.01.2007
whereby its was directed by the Hon’ble Court to adjudicate the rights before
the pending civil litigation. That Mr. Xxxxxhas not informed the pendency of
civil litigation qua the subject plot to this Hon’ble Court in view of the same
appropriate proceedings may be initiated against him for suppressing the
material information in order to get the relief form the kind hands of this
Hon’ble Court.
E.
Beside that Mr. Xxxxx( one of the legal heir of 1st Party )
has not disclosed about the registration of FIR by 2nd Party namely Xxxxxagainst
Mr.x, Mrs. xx (both deceased) and their accomplice namely Mr. Xxxxxand that
proceedings is pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble Court of C.M.M.,
Dwarka and is fixed for 16.08.2016.
F.
In the present application, 1st Party
through Mr.Xxxxxhas sought the relief of vacation of the attachment order qua
the subject plot relying upon the charge sheet filed by the local Police in a
case instituted by Xxxxx(Deceased) however, Mr. Xxxxxvery conveniently
concealed the factum of pendency of Petition moved by one of the party before
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi where in further investigation is being sought in
the said case and while hearing the said
petition , Hon’ble High Court in Crl. M.C. No. xxxxxpassed the following order
“It is made clear that the proceedings commenced during the
pendency of the present petition shall be the subject matter of this petition”
and this petition is coming for hearing
on 29.09.2016.
G.
Non filling of the report of
the Tehsildar (x) bearing reference No.xxxxxdated 13.01.2006 wherein as per the
demarcation report as well as copy of Jamabandhi Report it has been found that
the disputed plot falls under Khasra No.xxxxxinstead of 121/9 meaning thereby
the whole case of the 1st Party is proved to be false. Although Mr. Xxxxxhas
not thought it relevant to file it along with this application.
3. The
aforesaid facts clearly demonstrates that applicant Mr. Xxxxxhas concealed the
material facts which are necessary to be informed to this Hon’ble Court for the
disposal of aforesaid application.
4.
Placing a reliance over the out come of report filed
by the Police under section 173 Cr.P.C. would be of no help as so far no
charges have been framed against the 2nd party on the basis of that
report.
5.
That
the brief fact of case are as :
A. That
it has been alleged that Late Sh. x (hereinafter called as a 1st
party) that 1st Party had purchased a one plot of land measuring 250
sq. yards comprised in Xxxxxsituated at Xxxxx from one Sh. x S/o Sh. x vide
agreement dated 25.02.1991 for a sum of Rs. 55,000/-. In the testimony of sale
of the land the erstwhile owner namely Xxxxxexecuted various documents which
includes agreement to sell, general power of attorney, affidavit and cash
receipt.
B. That
it has been further alleged that Sh. Xxxxxprovided a complete chain of title
deed to the 1st Party and as per the chain of the documents that Mr.
Xxxxxhad purchased this plot from x who acted as a attorney of x and executed the
documents. x purchased the said plot from x on the strength of GPA, agreement
to sell, affidavit, receipt. x purchased the same plot from M/s. Xxxxxthrough
its proprietor M/s. Xxxxxwho acted through its trustee Mr. Xxxxx. It is further
case of the 1st party that M/s. Xxxxxpurchased one plot of 500 sq.
yrds. from x.
C. That
it is case of the 1st party that from the date of purchase of the
said plot respondent no.2 built a boundary wall and constructed a room therein.
However, on 05.01.2001 one of the friend of the 1st party introduced
one Mr. Xxxxx who was planning to start a business of building material in the
said shop, resulting Mr. Xxxxxwas inducted as a tenant in the subject shop.
D. It
is further case of the 1st party that on 20.05.2001 when he went to
collect the rent from Mr. Xxxxxwhere from he came to know that he had not
started the work from the said shop due to paucity of the funds, however it is
further xxxxxd that when Mr. Xxxxxwent to take possession of the shop he was
restrained by Mr. Xxxxxon the pretext that the said plot pertains to his real
brother namely Dr. Manish Arora, resulting PCR was called and post
investigation proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was initiated qua the
aforesaid plot.
E. During
the course of the police investigation it came to the knowledge that x have
purchased the 250 sq. yrds from one Sh. S.C. x, who in turn had purchased the
same from M/s. Xxxxx. Besides this the mother of Xxxxxhad also claim to be
purchaser of a adjoining plot from Smt. Xxxxx. However, during the course of
the investigation it has been transpired that Xxxxxis claiming to be owner of
the plot bearing No.17 whereas his mother claim to be owner of the Plot no.17A,
whereas the plot number of the 1st Party is 26.
F. As
per the case of the prosecution chain of title document anyone of these three
namely r1st Party, Xxxxxand Xxxxxqua the plot of 250 sq. yards is forged and
finally police file the charge sheet.
G. Needless
to say that the plot number of all the persons as above claimed to be owner of
the 250 sq. yards plot bears different numbers i.e. 17,17A & 26.
H. Where
as a perusal of the report submitted by the Tehsildar clearly shows that
complainant / respondent No.2 is not owner of the land bearing khasara No. xxxxxand
as per report this land pertains to some one else, in view there of this factum
needs investigation and non investigation over this issue would jeopardize the
right of the 2nd Party as such a petition before Hon”ble High Court
of Delhi was filed.
J. It
is worthwhile herein to mention that as per report of the Tehsildar (Palam)
bearing reference No.xxxxxdated 13.01.2006 wherein as per the demarcation
report as well as copy of Jamabandhi Report it has been found that the disputed
plot falls under Khasra No.xxxxxinstead of 121/9 meaning thereby the whole case
of the 1st party is proved to be false.
6. In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may please
decide the issue of maintainability of this application firstly at this stage
as there is no change in the circumstances. Thereafter, 2nd Party
reserves his right to file the detailed reply if this Hon’ble Courts think that
application moved by 1st Party is maintainable.
P R A Y E
R :-
In the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to dismiss the application moved by the 1st party
with costs.
Pass such other order or orders as
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper interest he interest of justice.
DELHI PETITIONER
THROUGH
DATED
x
