IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR; LD. ADJ;

EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.

CS/xxx/2023.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                        : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                          : DEFENDANTS

                                                          N.D.O.H: ………2024

DELHI                                             DEFENDANT NO.1TO3

(Through SPA holder) 

THROUGH

DATED                                                              

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

NEW DELHI – 110014

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR; LD. ADJ;

EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.

CS/xxx/xxxx.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                        : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                          : DEFENDANTS

                                                          N.D.O.H: ………2024

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1, DEFENDANT NO.2 AND DEFENDANT NO.3 [“THE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS”],

At the outset, it is submitted that the Plaint deserves at the threshold as the reliefs so sought are not only legally untenable but also the Plaint has been instituted by concealment of material facts, information, and crucial documents. Before adverting to the preliminary objections upon the maintainability of the Suit and para-wise reply to the averments in the Suit, a brief true factual narrative has been advanced to tender correct position before this Hon’ble Court.

TRUE AND CORRECT FACTUAL NARRATIVE BY WAY OF PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

a.      That Late Sh. Xxxxx S/o Late Sh. xxxxxxx and Late Sh. Xxxxxx were brothers and after their father’s demise were admittedly owners of 975 sq.ydsin the Khasra No. xx/xx, Khata No. xxx/xx situated in the Abadi and village xxxxx xxxxxxx, Delhi-51.

b.     Admittedly, Late xxxxx S/o Late Sh. xxxx xxxx had been the recorded owner of 487.5 sq.yds in the Khasra No. xx/xx, Khata No. xxx/xx situated in the Abadi and village xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Delhi-51 [“Xxxxxxx’s portion”]and had been in separate/divided  and exclusive possession of his part.Admittedly, after the death of Late Sh. xxxxx, his sons being Sh. xxxxxxxxx and Sh. xxxxxxxx conferred ownership upon Late Sh. xxxxxxx of 353.5 sq. ydsin the Khasra No. xxxxxxxx situated in the Abadi and village xxxxxxxxxx, Delhi-51 from the Xxxxxxx’s portion [“the Suit Property”].

c.      Admittedly, the Suit Property was sold by Late Sh. xxxxx to xxxxxxx and xxxxxx xxxx vide registered Irrevocable GPA dated xxxxxxx, ATS dated xxxxxxx, Will dated xxxxxxx, Affidavit dated xxxxxxx and Receipt dated xxxxxxx.

d.     Admittedly, the Suit Property was further sold by Xxxxxxx to Mr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx vide registered Sale Deed dated xxxxxxxxxxx

e.      Admittedly, the Suit Property was further sold by Mr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [“the answering defendants”]vide registered Sale Deed dated xxxxxxx and this way the answering defendants admittedly became the bonafide owners of the Suit Property.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE SUIT:

a.     WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE PRESENT SUIT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF SEEKING ‘PART PARTITION’ OF THE PROPERTY:

-Admitted the Plaintiff in the Plaint itself affirms that the answering defendants are owners of 353.5 sq. yds out of xxxxx’s Share i.e 475 sq.yds. It is the case of the Plaintiff that xxxxx’s share and Xxxxxxx’s Share are jointly admeasuring. 975 sq.yds. and that as the shares of Late Sh. xxxx and Late Sh. xxxxxxx is under joint ownership thus the Suit Property also forms part of joint ownership as they have inherited Late Sh. xxxxxx share. However, interestingly, the alleged partition has been sought only of the Suit Property which is 353.5 sq.yds and not of 975 sq.yds. Thus, even on the basis of pleadings/averment in the Plaint, the Suit deserves dismissal at the threshold on account of seeking alleged partition in part i.e the Suit Property being 353.5 sq yds instead of seeking alleged partition of 975 sq.yds being the alleged joint share of Late Sh.xxxxx and Late Sh. xxxxxx.

b.     WITHOUT PREJUDICE, NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE SUIT AND NO CHALLENGE TO THE ERSTWHILE AS WELL AS PRESENT TITLE DOCUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS QUA THE SUIT PROPERTY RENDERS THE SUIT LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AT THE THRESHOLD:

Reference is made to para-10 of the Plaint, wherein there has been a specific reference to the other connected 1^st Suit so filed by the Defendant No.9 [“the 1^st Suit”]. Admittedly, in the 1^st Suit, the answering defendants and other defendants had categorically and unequivocally enumerated the disclosure of answering defendants being the owners of the Suit Property. The answering defendants had further filed the title documents in the 1^st Suit, which explicitly entails the details of erstwhile owners as well as title documents. Thus,in spite of active knowledge pertaining to the existence of erstwhile title documents as well as erstwhile title holders, till date neither the erstwhile title documents have been challenged, nor the present title documents in favor of the answering defendants have been challenged vide the present Suit. It is further interesting to note that the erstwhile title holders/erstwhile owners of the Suit Property have also not been impleaded in the present Suit and further no relief sought against them. Thus, in light of the aforesaid narrative, it is much evident that the Suit is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties in the Suit and non-challenge to the erstwhile and present title documents in favor of the answering defendants.

c.      WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LIMITATION QUA ALL THE RELIEFS:

The Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Reference is made from the averments and pleadings of the Plaintiff. Admittedly, essentialparagraph in the plaint being- “when the cause of action for filing the plaint arose” is missing from the averments in the Plaint. The Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone. Even, for the sake of arguments, if such glaring illegality is over-looked and an attempt is made to decipher the cause of action from the pleadings, it is much evident that the present Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation basis the following foundational facts:

-      Acknowledgment by the Plaintiff in the present Suit qua filing of the 1^st Suit by the Defendant no.9 i.e Plaintiff’s brother in xxxxxx. However, the present relief for declaration is being sought vide the present Suit in xx,xxx i.e after more than 3 years. That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. xxxxxxxxx [i.e the father of the Plaintiff], xxxxxx [grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being xxxx. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of Late Sh. xxxxxxx, xxxxxxx Devi having compromised the Suit No. xxxxx with erstwhile owner- xxxx titled as- xxxxxx W/o Late Sh. xxxxxxxx and Sh. xxxxx S/o Late xxxxxxxx VsS xxxxxx W/o Late Sh. xxxxxx, Sh. xxxxxxxxxxxx, Sh..xxxxxx and Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC. Therefore, cause of action if any had been exhausted way back in xxxx/96. Thus, the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.

-      The relief of partition is not maintainable as only ‘part partition’ is sought by the Plaintiff.

-      Furthermore, the relief of possession has not neither been valued in the Plaint, nor any court fees paid on the same. Thus, no basis whatsoever has been made out to seek any relief of possession.In any case, the Plaintiff admittedly has not been in possession of the Suit Property for more than 12 years. Thus, even the relief of possession is not legally sustainable.

Basis, the settled jurisprudence on the said issues and the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court on the said issues, the Suit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

d.     WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL ON ACCOUNT BAR UNDER ORDER-2, RULE-2 AS ERSTWHILE SUIT I.E 1^ST SUIT:

Admittedly, the Plaintiff by his own admission in the Plaint admits that he had been duly aware of the 1^st Suit filed by the Defendant No.9/his brother. Admittedly, the 1^st Suit was filed in xxxx. It is further an admitted position on record that Order 2 Rule 2 mandates that a plaintiff must include their entire claim related to a specific cause of action in one lawsuit. If the plaintiff intentionally or unintentionally omits a part of the claim, they cannot file a separate suit for it without the court's permission. In any case, the present Suit is also barred on account erstwhile Suit pending in the Court. It is an admitted position of the Plaintiff that he was aware about the 1^st Suit since inception, thus no refuge can even be taken to the effect that he was’nt aware about the 1^st Suit. Thus, the present Suit is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

e.      WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A PERUSAL OF 1^st SUIT FILED BY GAURAV SHARMA [THE DEFENDANT NO.9 SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT SUIT IS NOT ONLY A COLLUSIVE SUIT BUT IS CONTUMACIOUS ATTEMPT TO USURP THE SUIT PROPERTY.

Following instances/particulars decipherable from the pleadings of the parties, which leads to unequivocal conclusion that the present Suit has been filed not only as a collusive suit but also with malafide and in order to extort money from the answering Defendants. Such instances interalia include:

-Reference to the memo of parties, address of Plaintiff i.e xxxxxx in the 1^st Suit and xxxxxx/Plaintiff in the present Suit is similar.

-At the instance of 1^st Suit itself, the Plaintiff in the 1^st Suit knew that he or his family members in no manner are owners of the Suit Property. Admittedly, the Plaintiff in the present Suit also confirms   the filing of the 1^st Suit was under his knowledge. Thus, when prayer for partition is allegedly sought vide the present Suit, it is undecipherable as to how in the 1^st Suit, the Plaintiff therein claimed to be the owner of the Suit Property.

-Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx and Late Sh. xxxxxx is around 975 sq.yds. However, the alleged partition is sought only for around 353.5 sq. yds. The only untenable explanation offered is that rest of the portion is under illegal possession and thus alleged partition is only sought qua the Suit Property i.e 353.5 sq. yds. The aforesaid speaks volumes about the conduct and real intent/motive behind the Plaintiff and his family members.

-Even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. Xxxxxxx[i.e the father of the Plaintiff], Xxxxxxx[grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being xxxx being Suit No.xxxxxxx and the same was withdrawn by Late Sh. Xxxxxxxi.e father of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, no partition or other relief as allegedly sought vide the present Suit had been preferred. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC.

f.       WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL ON ACCOUNT OF PECUNIARY LIMIT/JURISDICTION AND ON COUNT OF ERRONEOUS VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND NON-PAYMENT OF THE COURT FEE ON RELIEF OF POSSESSION:

Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx and Late Sh. Xxxxxxx is around 975 sq.yds . However, the alleged partition is sought only for around 353.5 sq. yds and accordingly, the Suit is valued at xxxxxxx/-. It is settled law that the Suit for partition cannot be entertained in part and thus for determining pecuniary limit, the valuation ought to be as per the complete partionable land i.e 975 sq.yds as alleged by the Plaintiff himself. If that be so, the Suit for the basis of pecuniary limit would be valued at around 5 crores which clearly disentitles this Hon’ble Court from proceeding forward. Thus, the Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone.

g.     WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL WITH COSTS ON ACCOUNT MATERIAL CONCEALMENT OF PREVIOUS SETTLEMENT IN SUITS WITH THE ERSTWHILE OWNERS:

That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. Xxxxxxx[i.e the father of the Plaintiff],Xxxxxxx[grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Xxxxxxx. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, SmtXxxxxxxhaving compromised the Suit No. xxxxxxxwith erstwhile owner- Xxxxxxx titled as- SmtBasantiW/o Late Sh. XxxxxxxSharma and Sh. Xxxxxxx S/o Late Shl XxxxxxxVsSmtXxxxxxxW/o Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, Sh. Xxxxxxx, Sh..Xxxxxxx and Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC.

h.     WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ALLEGED WILL DATED 22.03.1956 BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE GRANDFATHER OF THE PLAINTIFF BECAME THE OWNER OF THE SUIT PROPERTY HAS NEITHER BEEN ATTACHTED NOR ANY PROOF QUA THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN FILED ON RECORD. THUS, ON THIS GROUND ALONE, THE SUITE DESERVES DISMISSAL AT THE OUTSET

PARA-WISE REPLY:-

Reply to Para-1:

1.     It is submitted that the answering Defendants are successive purchasers of the Suit Property and the averments as stated in para-1 is not in personal knowledge of the answering Defendants. However, the answering Defendants would acquiesce to averment in the said para, if proved on record by the Plaintiff.That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.            

Reply to para 2:

2.     In reply to the said para-2, it is submitted that devolution of title of the answering defendants emanates from Late Sh. Xxxxxxx. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Inder Singh pursuant to Oral Partition acquired 975 sq.yds andafter the death of the Late Sh. Inder Singh, the said 975 sq.yds devolved solely upon his two (2) sons namely Late Sh. Xxxxxxx and Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, whereby both the sons admittedly acquired 487.5 sq. yds each, respectively. It is further submitted that both the sons had duly partitioned the property and were in separate and exclusive possession of their respective portions as admittedly, no record or proof to claim possession by Plaintiff or any of their family members on the Suit Property has ever been filed on record.The family tree so filed is denied for the want of knowledge. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para- 3:

3.     In reply to the said para-3, it is submitted that devolution of title of the answering defendants emanates from Late Sh. Xxxxxxx. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Inder Singh pursuant to Oral Partition acquired 975 sq.yds and after the death of the Late Sh. Inder Singh, the said 975 sq.yds devolved solely upon his two (2) sons namely Late Sh. Xxxxxxx and Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, whereby both the sons admittedly acquired 487.5 sq. yds each, respectively. It is further submitted that both the sons had duly partitioned the property and were in separate and exclusive possession of their respective portions as admittedly, no record or proof to claim possession by Plaintiff or any of their family members on the Suit Property has ever been filed on record. Without Prejudice, the Plaintiff in the Plaint itself affirms that the answering defendants are owners of 353.5 sq. yds out of Xxxxxxx’s Share i.e 475 sq.yds. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Xxxxxxx’s share and Xxxxxxx’s Share are jointly admeasuring. 975 sq.yds. and that as the shares of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx and Late Sh. Xxxxxxx is under joint ownership thus the Suit Property also forms part of joint ownership as they have inherited Late Sh. Xxxxxxx’s share. However, interestingly, the alleged partition has been sought only of the Suit Property which is 353.5 sq.yds and not of 975 sq.yds. Thus, even on the basis of pleadings/averment in the Plaint, the Suit deserves dismissal at the threshold on account of seeking alleged partition in part i.e the Suit Property being 353.5 sq yds instead of seeking alleged partition of 975 sq.yds being the alleged joint share of Late Sh.Xxxxxxx and Late Sh. Xxxxxxx. Therefore, it is denied that at present the undivided portion in the property measuring 353.55 sq.yds out of Khasra no. 25/29 situated at Village Khureji, Khas, Delhi-31 from the total property i.e 975 sq.yds is available for the purpose of partition among the parties to the suit since remaining portion of the property is in illegal and unlawful possession of other occupants. It is further denied that the aforesaid portion of 353.55 sq.yds portion shown in red colour in the site plan as Annexure-P/3. That any claim of 1/20^th undivided share in 353.55 sq. yds which comes to 17.65 sq. yds as share of the Plaintiff is legally untenable and incomprehensible. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-4

4.     That the contents of para no.4 of the captioned suit are wrong and hence denied. It is denied that the aforesaid Xxxxxxx, handicapped and unmarried, who bequeathed his share including the share in the suit property, by virtue of Will Deed dated xxxx in favour of the grandfather of the Plaintiff namely Sh. Xxxxxxxx. It is submitted that the alleged will dated xxxxx has neither been attached with the suit, not the contents of the same have been either stated or proved in the suit. It is submitted that without attaching the alleged will, the reliance on the same cannot be placed. Without prejudice, the answering Defendants reserve their rights to reply and plead further once the alleged will is brought on record. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.                

Reply to para-5

5.     That the contents of para no.5 of the captioned suit are wrong and denied. It is denied that in the year 1960, the grandfather of the plaintiff namely Sh. Xxxxxxxxxx who claimed to be an adopted son of Xxxxxxx and also the successor of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx by virtue of the will dated 22.03.1956 executed by Sh. Xxxxxxx in favour of Sh. Xxxxxxxxxx. It is further denied that Mr. Xxxxxxxxxxx had filed a civil suit no. 316/60 titled as “XxxxxxxSxxx vs Sh. Xxxxxxx and Ors.” before the court of Ld. Sub-Judge Delhi for suit for possession of land of Sh. Xxxxxxx i.e. 21/144 share of the land measuring 314 Begha and 8 Biswa of the deceased Sh. Xxxxxxx’s land. It is further denied that the aforesaid prem chand, grandfather of the Plaintiff, had filed an appeal vide RCA No. xxxx gainst the aforesaid judgement/decree dated xxxxx before the Ld. ADJ, Delhi, which was partly allowed vide order dated xxxxxx, wherein it was held that Sh. XxxxxxxSharma became owner of land of Sh. Xxxxxxx by virtue of Will deed dated xxxx vide its order dated xxxxx. It is further denied that the two respondents namely Sh. xxxx and Sh. xxxx in the said appeal had filed a second appeal vide RCA no. xxxxx against the judgement of First Appeallant Court before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. It is further denied that the Hon’ble High Court had confirmed the findings/judgement dared xxxxxx passed by the First Appeallant Court wherein it was proved that the said will deed dated xx.xx.xxxx was proved by the grandfather of the Plaintiff namely Sh. Xxxxxxxxxx. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-6:

6.     That the contents of the para no. 6 of the captioned suit is wrong and hence specifically denied. It is denied that the grandfather of the Plaintiff namely Sh. Xxxxxxxxxx was successor of Sh. Xxxxxxx by virtue of will dated xxxxx executed by Sh. Xxxxxxx in favour of Sh. Xxxxxxxxxx in respect of the properties of Sh. Xxxxxxx and the suit property is originally part of deceased Sh. Xxxxxxx and Sh. xxx. It is submitted that the alleged will dated xxxxx has neither been attached with the suit, not the contents of the same have been either stated or proved in the suit. It is submitted that without attaching the alleged will, the reliance on the same cannot be placed. Without prejudice, the answering Defendants reserve their rights to reply and plead further once the alleged will is brought on record. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-7 and 8 :

7.     That the contents of paras no. 7 & 8 of the captioned suit are admitted to the extent that the Defendant No. 1, 2, 3 have claimed to purchase the suit property from the successors of xxx. It is denied that since no partition had taken place between Xxxxxxx and Kale in respect of the suit property in their lifetime, therefore the Defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 are in possession of the undivided portion of the suit property. It is further denied that they have stepped in the shoe of successors of xxx and hence they are in possession of the suit property as co-owners only and they cannot claim to purchase any specific portion of the suit property by virtue of their sale documents.It is submitted that devolution of title of the answering defendants emanates from Late Sh. Xxxxxxx. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Inder Singh pursuant to Oral Partition acquired 975 sq.yds and after the death of the Late Sh. Inder Singh, the said 975 sq.yds devolved solely upon his two (2) sons namely Late Sh. Xxxxxxx and Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, whereby both the sons admittedly acquired 487.5 sq. yds each, respectively. It is further submitted that both the sons had duly partitioned the property and were in separate and exclusive possession of their respective portions as admittedly, no record or proof to claim possession by Plaintiff or any of their family members on the Suit Property has ever been filed on record.That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. Xxxxxxx [i.e the father of the Plaintiff], Xxxxxxx [grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Xxxxxxx. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, SmtXxxxxxxhaving compromised the Suit No. xx/1995 with erstwhile owner- Xxxxxxx titled as- SmtBasanti W/o Late Sh. Xxxxxxxxxx and Sh. Xxxxxxx S/o Late Shl XxxxxxxVsSmtXxxxxxx W/o Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, Sh. Xxxxxxx, Sh..Xxxxxxxand Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC.It is denied that the Plaintiff and Defendant no. 4 to 9 are also co-owners in the suit property and therefore they are legally entitled to get their share in partition of the suit property by meets and bounds. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-9:

8.     It is denied that any such legal notice dated xxxxxxx was received by the answering defendants. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-10:

9.     In response, it is submitted that inspite of the fact that the xxxxxxx/Defendant no.9 knew that the ownership of the Suit Property is with the answering Defendants, still the answering Defendants were not impleaded. Furthermore, construction if any had been undertaken by the answering defendants and in case of any deviation, if so pointed out by the MCD, the answering Defendants shall carry on requisite repairs. In reference to the 1^st Suit, following instances/particulars decipherable from the pleadings of the parties, which leads to unequivocal conclusion that the present Suit has been filed not only as a collusive suit but also with malafide and in order to extort money from the answering Defendants. Such instances interalia include:

-Reference to the memo of parties, address of Plaintiff i.e xxxxxx in the 1^st Suit and xxxxxx/Plaintiff in the present Suit is similar.

-At the instance of 1^st Suit itself, the Plaintiff in the 1^st Suit knew that he or his family members in no manner are owners of the Suit Property. Admittedly, the Plaintiff in the present Suit also confirms   the filing of the 1^st Suit was under his knowledge. Thus, when prayer for partition is allegedly sought vide the present Suit, it is undecipherable as to how in the 1^st Suit, the Plaintiff therein claimed to be the owner of the Suit Property.

-Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx and Late Sh. Xxxxxxx is around 975 sq.yds . However, the alleged partition is sought only for around 353.5 sq. yds. The only untenable explanation offered is that rest of the portion is under illegal possession and thus alleged partition is only sought qua the Suit Property i.e 353.5 sq. yds. The aforesaid speaks volumes about the conduct and real intent/motive behind the Plaintiff and his family members.

-Even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. Xxxxxxx[i.e the father of the Plaintiff], Xxxxxxx[grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Xxxxxxx being Suit No.xxx/1995 and the same was withdrawn by Late Sh. Xxxxxxxi.e father of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, no partition or other relief as allegedly sought vide the present Suit had been preferred. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC. 

Reply to para-11 & para-12:

10. That in response to the contents of para no. 11 of the captioned suit, it is submitted that the suit property is the absolute and exclusive property of the answering defendants purchased as described hereinabove and the possession of the suit property is also absolutely and exclusively with the answering Defendants. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It is further denied that the answering defendants were gaining any unlawful benefits. The Suit Property is exclusive property of the answering defendants. That the contents of para no. 12 of the captioned suit are wrong and hence specifically denied. It is denied that the Defendant No. 1 to 3 have illegally claimed to be the absolute owner of the suit property and denied the claim of the Plaintiff to be an owner of the suit property, therefore it is necessary to seek the declaration to the effect that the Plaintiff is also co-owner of the suit property along with the other co-owners. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to para-13 & 14:

11. That in response to the contents of paras no.13 & 14 of the said suit, the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.That the contents of para no. 14 of the captioned suit are wrong and hence specifically denied. It is denied that there is a clear cause of action to file the present suit against the defendant especially the Defendant No.1 to 3. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has intentionally not disclosed the exact date and year when the alleged cause of action for filing the present suit arose as the present suit is hopelessly time barred. That the contents of the preliminary submission and objection may be treated as a part and parcel of the present para and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Reply to Para-15

12. In response to para-15, it is submitted that the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Reference is made from the averments and pleadings of the Plaintiff. Admittedly, essential paragraph in the plaint being- “when the cause of action for filing the plaint arose” is missing from the averments in the Plaint. The Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone. Even, for the sake of arguments, if such glaring illegality is over-looked and an attempt is made to decipher the cause of action from the pleadings, it is much evident that the present Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation basis the following foundational facts:

-      Without Prejudice, there is express acknowledgment by the Plaintiff in the present Suit qua filing of the 1^st Suit by the Defendant no.9 i.e Plaintiff’s brother in xxx. However, the present relief for declaration is being sought vide the present Suit in xxxx i.e after more than 3 years.That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. Xxxxxxx[i.e the father of the Plaintiff], Xxxxxxx[grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Xxxxxxx. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, SmtXxxxxxxhaving compromised the Suit No. xxxxxxx with erstwhile owner- Xxxxxxx titled as- SmtBasanti W/o Late Sh. XxxxxxxSharma and Sh. Xxxxxxx S/o Late ShlXxxxxxxVsSmtXxxxxxx W/o Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, Sh. Xxxxxxx, Sh..Xxxxxxxand Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC. Therefore, cause of action if any had been exhausted way back in xxxxxxx. Thus, the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.

-      The relief of partition is not maintainable as only ‘part partition’ is sought by the Plaintiff.

-      Furthermore, the relief of possession has not neither been valued in the Plaint, nor any court fees paid on the same. Thus, no basis whatsoever has been made out to seek any relief of possession. In any case, the Plaintiff admittedly has not been in possession of the Suit Property for more than 12 years. Thus, even the relief of possession is not legally sustainable. 

Basis, the settled jurisprudence on the said issues and the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court on the said issues, the Suit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

Reply to para-16:

13. Needs no reply.

Reply to para-17:

14. The averment is the said para is wrong as admittedly, 1^st Suit had been filed with prior knowledge, consent, and approval of the Plaintiff herein. Thus, the present Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone.

Reply to Prayer Clause:

All prayers liable to be dismissed in light of the above preliminary submissions, preliminaryobjections and response hereinabove.

DELHI                                         DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3

(THROUGH SPA HOLDER)

THROUGH

DATED                                                              

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS

Dxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NEW DELHI – 110014.

VERIFICATION :-

Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of xxxxxxxxx that the contents of paras No.1 to 17 of the written statement are true and correct to the defendant’s knowledge and as per legal information received and believed to be true, further, the contents of paras a) to h) of the preliminary submission and objections are true and correct to the answering defendants’ knowledge and as per legal information received and believed to be true.

Last is the prayer to this Hon’ble Court.

DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3

(THROUGH SPA HOLDER)

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR; LD. ADJ;

EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.

CS/xxx/2023.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                        : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                          : DEFENDANTS

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3 TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 & 2 OF CPC.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

At the outset it is respectfully submitted that, the answering defendants no.1 to 3 have filed accompanying written statement to the plaint in the above noted case which is pending before this Hon’ble Court and the answering defendants crave leave of this Hon’ble court to refer to the pleas of the answering defendants in the same as part of hereof.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

a.     WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE PRESENT SUIT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF SEEKING ‘PART PARTITION’ OF THE PROPERTY:

-Admitted the Plaintiff in the Plaint itself affirms that the answering defendants are owners of 353.5 sq. yds out of Xxxxxxx’s Share i.e 475 sq.yds. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Xxxxxxx’s share and Xxxxxxx’s Share are jointly admeasuring. 975 sq.yds. and that as the shares of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx and Late Sh. Xxxxxxx is under joint ownership thus the Suit Property also forms part of joint ownership as they have inherited Late Sh. Xxxxxxx’s share. However, interestingly, the alleged partition has been sought only of the Suit Property which is 353.5 sq.yds and not of 975 sq.yds. Thus, even on the basis of pleadings/averment in the Plaint, the Suit deserves dismissal at the threshold on account of seeking alleged partition in part i.e the Suit Property being 353.5 sq yds instead of seeking alleged partition of 975 sq.yds being the alleged joint share of Late Sh.Xxxxxxx and Late Sh. Xxxxxxx.

b.     WITHOUT PREJUDICE, NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE SUIT AND NO CHALLENGE TO THE ERSTWHILE AS WELL AS PRESENT TITLE DOCUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS QUA THE SUIT PROPERTY RENDERS THE SUIT LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AT THE THRESHOLD:

Reference is made to para-10 of the Plaint, wherein there has been a specific reference to the other connected 1^st Suit so filed by the Defendant No.9 [“the 1^st Suit”]. Admittedly, in the 1^st Suit, the answering defendants and other defendants had categorically and unequivocally enumerated the disclosure of answering defendants being the owners of the Suit Property. The answering defendants had further filed the title documents in the 1^st Suit, which explicitly entails the details of erstwhile owners as well as title documents. Thus, in spite of active knowledge pertaining to the existence of erstwhile title documents as well as erstwhile title holders, till date neither the erstwhile title documents have been challenged, nor the present title documents in favor of the answering defendants have been challenged vide the present Suit. It is further interesting to note that the erstwhile title holders/erstwhile owners of the Suit Property have also not been impleaded in the present Suit and further no relief sought against them. Thus, in light of the aforesaid narrative, it is much evident that the Suit is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties in the Suit and non-challenge to the erstwhile and present title documents in favor of the answering defendants.

c.      WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LIMITATION QUA ALL THE RELIEFS:

The Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Reference is made from the averments and pleadings of the Plaintiff. Admittedly, essential paragraph in the plaint being- “when the cause of action for filing the plaint arose” is missing from the averments in the Plaint. The Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone. Even, for the sake of arguments, if such glaring illegality is over-looked and an attempt is made to decipher the cause of action from the pleadings, it is much evident that the present Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation basis the following foundational facts:

-      Acknowledgment by the Plaintiff in the present Suit qua filing of the 1^st Suit by the Defendant no.9 i.e Plaintiff’s brother in xxxx. However, the present relief for declaration is being sought vide the present Suit in xxx i.e after more than 3 years. That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. Xxxxxxx[i.e the father of the Plaintiff], Xxxxxxx[grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Xxxxxxx. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, SmtXxxxxxxhaving compromised the Suit No. xxxxxxx with erstwhile owner- Xxxxxxx titled as- SmtBasanti W/o Late Sh. XxxxxxxSharma and Sh. Xxxxxxx S/o Late Shl XxxxxxxVsSmtXxxxxxx W/o Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, Sh. Xxxxxxx, Sh..Xxxxxxxand Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC. Therefore, cause of action if any had been exhausted way back in 1995/96. Thus, the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.

-      The relief of partition is not maintainable as only ‘part partition’ is sought by the Plaintiff.

-      Furthermore, the relief of possession has not neither been valued in the Plaint,nor any court fees paid on the same. Thus, no basis whatsoever has been made out to seek any relief of possession.In any case, the Plaintiff admittedly has not been in possession of the Suit Property for more than 12 years. Thus, even the relief of possession is not legally sustainable.

Basis, the settled jurisprudence on the said issues and the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court on the said issues, the Suit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

d.     WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL ON ACCOUNT BAR UNDER ORDER-2, RULE-2 AS ERSTWHILE SUIT I.E 1^ST SUIT:

Admittedly, the Plaintiff by his own admission in the Plaint admits that he had been duly aware of the 1^st Suit filed by the Defendant No.9/his brother. Admittedly, the 1^st Suit was filed in Jan,20. It is further an admitted position on record that Order 2 Rule 2 mandates that a plaintiff must include their entire claim related to a specific cause of action in one lawsuit. If the plaintiff intentionally or unintentionally omits a part of the claim, they cannot file a separate suit for it without the court's permission. In any case, the present Suit is also barred on account erstwhile Suit pending in the Court. It is an admitted position of the Plaintiff that he was aware about the 1^st Suit since inception, thus no refuge can even be taken to the effect that he was’nt aware about the 1^st Suit. Thus, the present Suit is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

e.      WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A PERUSAL OF 1^st SUIT FILED BY GAURAV SHARMA [THE DEFENDANT NO.9 SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT SUIT IS NOT ONLY A COLLUSIVE SUIT BUT IS CONTUMACIOUS ATTEMPT TO USURP THE SUIT PROPERTY.

Following instances/particulars decipherable from the pleadings of the parties, which leads to unequivocal conclusion that the present Suit has been filed not only as a collusive suit but also with malafide and in order to extort money from the answering Defendants. Such instances interalia include:

-Reference to the memo of parties, address of Plaintiff i.e Gaurav Sharma in the 1^st Suit andAasheesh Sharma/Plaintiff in the present Suit is similar.

-At the instance of 1^st Suit itself, the Plaintiff in the 1^st Suit knew that he or his family members in no manner are owners of the Suit Property. Admittedly, the Plaintiff in the present Suit also confirms   the filing of the 1^st Suit was under his knowledge. Thus, when prayer for partition is allegedly sought vide the present Suit, it is undecipherable as to how in the 1^st Suit, the Plaintiff therein claimed to be the owner of the Suit Property.

-Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx and Late Sh. Xxxxxxx is around 975 sq.yds. However, the alleged partition is sought only for around 353.5 sq. yds. The only untenable explanation offered is that rest of the portion is under illegal possession and thus alleged partition is only sought qua the Suit Property i.e 353.5 sq. yds. The aforesaid speaks volumes about the conduct and real intent/motive behind the Plaintiff and his family members.

-Even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. Xxxxxxx[i.e the father of the Plaintiff], Xxxxxxx[grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Xxxxxxx being Suit No.xxxxxxx and the same was withdrawn by Late Sh. Xxxxxxxi.e father of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, no partition or other relief as allegedly sought vide the present Suit had been preferred. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC.

f.       WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL ON ACCOUNT OF PECUNIARY LIMIT/JURISDICTION AND ON COUNT OF ERRONEOUS VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND NON-PAYMENT OF THE COURT FEE ON RELIEF OF POSSESSION:

Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx and Late Sh. Xxxxxxx is around 975 sq.yds . However, the alleged partition is sought only for around 353.5 sq. yds and accordingly, the Suit is valued at xxxxxxx/-. It is settled law that the Suit for partition cannot be entertained in part and thus for determining pecuniary limit, the valutation ought to be as per the complete partionable land i.e 975 sq.yds as alleged by the Plaintiff himself. If that be so, the Suit for the basis of pecuniary limit would be valued at around 5 crores which clearly disentitles this Hon’ble Court from proceeding forward. Thus, the Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone.

g.     WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL WITH COSTS ON ACCOUNT MATERIAL CONCEALMENT OF PREVIOUS SETTLEMENT IN SUITS WITH THE ERSTWHILE OWNERS:

That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. Xxxxxxx[i.e the father of the Plaintiff],Xxxxxxx[grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Xxxxxxx. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, SmtXxxxxxxhaving compromised the Suit No. xxxxxxxwith erstwhile owner- Xxxxxxx titled as- SmtBasantiW/o Late Sh. XxxxxxxSharma and Sh. Xxxxxxx S/o Late Shl XxxxxxxVsSmtXxxxxxxW/o Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, Sh. Xxxxxxx, Sh..Xxxxxxxand Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled and thus the present Suit in light of the fact deserve dismissal on account Order-2, Rule-2 read in light of Order Section-11 of CPC.

h.     WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ALLEGED WILL DATED 22.03.1956 BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE GRANDFATHER OF THE PLAINTIFF BECAME THE OWNER OF THE SUIT PROPERTY HAS NEITHER BEEN ATTACHTED NOR ANY PROOF QUA THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN FILED ON RECORD. THUS, ON THIS GROUND ALONE, THE SUITE DESERVES DISMISSAL AT THE OUTSET

PARAWISE REPLY:-

1.                 That the contents of para No.1 of the application are a matter of record, however it is submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false and frivolous for the reason stated in the written statement. It is submitted that the contents of the written statement may be read as part and parcel of the reply to the application under reply.

2.                 That the contents of para No. 2 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff is having got a very good prima facie case in his favour and against the Defendants and there is every likelihood to succeed in the said case against the Defendants. The contents of the written statement may be read as a part hereof being not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

3.                 That the contents of para No. 3 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in the present suit to get the relief of ex-parte / ad-interim injunction in his favour. It is submitted that the contents of the written statement may be read as part and parcel of the reply to the application under reply.

4.                 That the contents of para No. 4 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff shall suffer with an irreparable losses and injuries, in case the present application is not allowed. It is submitted that the contents of the written statement may be read as part and parcel of the reply to the application under reply.

5.                 That the contents of para No. 4 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff shall have no option to file the present application against the Defendant. It is submitted that the contents of the written statement may be read as part and parcel of the reply to the application under reply.

That the contents of the prayer clause of the application are baseless, vague, wrong and hence strongly opposed.  The plaintiff has no right to attachment before judgment against the answering defendants in respect of the suit property. Even the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the present application against the answering defendants for the reason mentioned in detailed herein above.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court, may kindly be please to dismiss the present application under reply, in the interest of justice.

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 defendants, in the interest of justice.

It is prayed accordingly.   

DELHI                                         DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3

(THROUGH SPA HOLDER)

THROUGH

DATED                                                              

xxxxxxxxx

ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS

xxxxxxxxxxxxx.

NEW DELHI – 110014.

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR; LD. ADJ;

EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.

CS/xxx/2023.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                        : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

xxxxxxxxxxxxx                        : DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Sh. xxxxxxxxx, aged about ___ years, S/o xxxxxxxx R/o House xxxxxxxxxx, New Delhi-110026, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.                 That I am the Power Attorney Holder of Smt. xxxxxxxxxx being the Defendants No.1 to 3 in the above case and am thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances, pursuant to the information provided to me, thereof and am competent to swear this affidavit.

2.                 That the accompanying written statement to the plaint, have been drafted by my counsel as per my instruction and the contents of the same have been duly read over and understood by me and after fully understanding the contents of the samee.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

Verified at New Delhi on ___ day of  January, 2024 that the contents of 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 COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR; LD. ADJ;

EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.

CS/xxxx/2023.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                    : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                      : DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Sh. xxxxxxxxx, aged about ___ years, S/o Sh. xxxxxxxxxxx R/o xxxxxxxxxxxx., New Delhi-110026, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.       That I am the Power Attorney Holder of Defendants No.1 to 3 in the above case and am thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances, pursuant to the information provided to me, thereof and am competent to swear this affidavit.

2.       That the accompanying reply to the Application have been drafted by my counsel as per my instruction and the contents of the same have been duly read over and understood by me and after fully understanding the contents of the same, I hereby state that the facts therein are all true and correct to my knowledge.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

Verified at New Delhi on ___ day of  January, 2024 that the contents of 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 COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR; LD. ADJ;

EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.

CS/xxx/2023.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                     : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                     : DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS / DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3 UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 OF C.P.C. R/W SECTION 151 OF C.P.C. AND R/W SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT, FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF WRITTEN STATEMENT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

1.       That the captioned plaint has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants before this Hon’ble Court and same is pending before this Hon’ble Court for ……….2024.

2.       That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit the applicants / answering Defendants were aghast owing to the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the title of the Suit Property. In lieu, the answering Defendants inquired from the erstwhile owners and got to know that even in the past, there had been legal proceedings instituted between Late Sh. Xxxxxxx[i.e the father of the Plaintiff],Xxxxxxx[grandmother of the Plaintiff], etc and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Xxxxxxx. Inspite of diligent efforts for over last two months, the answering defendants could only procure some documents being Statement of Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, SmtXxxxxxxhaving compromised the Suit No. xxxxxxxwith erstwhile owner- Xxxxxxx titled as- SmtBasantiW/o Late Sh. XxxxxxxSharma and Sh. Xxxxxxx S/o Late Shl XxxxxxxVsSmtXxxxxxxW/o Late Sh. Xxxxxxx, Sh. Xxxxxxx, Sh..Xxxxxxxand Ors. The answering Defendants could only procure 3 pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same is procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict test to testify on the same as inspite of being aware about the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the Plaintiff is un-necessarily without any legal basis filed the present Suit.

3.       It is submitted that the applicants / defendant no.1 to 3 have not been served the copy of the plaint and its documents, till date to the applicant. Hence, in the absence of said documents, it is not possible to prepare the written statement and same cannot be filed within three days before this Hon’ble Court.

4.       It is submitted that the plaintiff was not supplied the copy of the suit along with documents despite repeated requests, therefore, applicant / defendants applied certified copy of the complete file along with documents and certified copy of the same was received. In the absence of copy of the suit and complete documents it is not possible to prepare the written statement within three days, due to which the applicant could not file the written statement as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court which was neither intentional nor deliberate, hence, the written statement is within limitation from the date of receiving of completion copy of the present suit and the same was filing before this Hon’ble Court and copy of the same supplied to the plaintiff.

5.       That due to above said reason the written statement has not been filed by the defendants and delay has been caused and now the applicant / defendants is filing the present application for condone the delay in filing of the written statement and may allow the present application and written statement of the defendants may taken on record.

PRAYER:-

It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the present application and may be condoned delay in filing the written statement before this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.

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 defendants, in the interest of justice.

It is prayed accordingly,

DELHI                                         DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 3

(THROUGH SPA HOLDER)

THROUGH

DATED                                                      ------------------------

ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS

---------------------.

NEW DELHI – 110014.

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR; LD. ADJ;

EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.

CS/432/2023.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                     : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                     : DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Sh. xxxxxxxxxxxx, aged about ___ years, S/o Sh. xxxxxxxxx R/o xxxxxxxxx, New Delhi-110026, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.       That I am the Power Attorney Holder of Defendants No.1 to 3 in the above case and am thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances, pursuant to the information provided to me, thereof and am competent to swear this affidavit.

2.       I say that I have gone through the contents of the accompanying application under Order 8 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of CPC has been drafted by my counsel at my instructions and the same is correct as part of this affidavit as well, as those are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi on this ___day of January, 2023 that the contents of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to best of my knowledge and belief no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT