IN THE COURT OF Name and designation of the judge
DISTRICT: CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. DJ NO. Case (CS DJ) number OF Year of case number
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendant's name: DEFENDANT
N.D.O.H.: 23.07.Year of next date of hearing
I N D E X
S.NO.PARTICULARS PAGES
1.REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF TO THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND FILED BY THE DEFENDANT, WITH AFFIDAVIT.
2.REPLY TO THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WITH AFFIDAVIT.
DELHIPLAINTIFF
DATEDTHROUGH
Date of filing (first copy)
ADVOCATE
Advocate's name (first copy) -----------------------------------
Mob. No. -----------------------------
Email:
IN THE COURT OF Name and designation of the judge
DISTRICT: CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. DJ NO. Case (CS DJ) number OF Year of case number
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendant's name: DEFENDANT
N.D.O.H.: 23.07.Year of next date of hearing
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF TO THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND FILED BY THE DEFENDANT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
1.That the present application is a bundle of lies and misrepresentations and does not make out any case for the grant of leave to defend the suit. It is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs.
2.That the defendant was served with summons on Date of service of summons and has been appearing continuously since then. The defendant, however, entered appearance before this Hon'ble Court only on Date of entry of appearance by defendant. The present application for leave to defend has been filed on Date of filing of leave to defend application, although the time for filing the leave to defend is to be computed from Start date for computing limitation. On the last date of hearing, i.e., Date of last hearing, the Plaintiff submitted that he had not received a copy of the application and further submitted that he had already shifted from his previous address. On this, the Defendant undertook to supply a copy of the same to the Plaintiff within seven days from Date of undertaking to supply copy; however, the Defendant failed to supply the same within seven days as directed by this Hon'ble Court. Despite the delay in filing the application for leave to defend, the Defendant has thus disobeyed the order of this Hon'ble Court. The leave to defend application filed by the Defendant is, therefore, time-barred and cannot be taken on record. The Defendant has filed an application to condone a delay of four days on the ground that on Date of counsel's alleged illness the counsel for the Defendant had suffered a severe muscle spasm resulting in complete immobility of her right hand, i.e., her dominant typing hand. The said plea for condonation of delay in filing the leave to defend application is false and made-up. The present application was filed by the Defendant on Date of filing of leave to defend application, which is beyond the statutory period. The Defendant has not advanced any proper or substantial ground as to why the leave to defend could not be filed within the stipulated statutory period of ten days as contemplated under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of CPC. On this ground alone, the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment and decree in his favour.
3.That even otherwise, the Defendant is not entitled to leave to defend, and the same must be refused, as the leave to defend application does not disclose facts indicating that the Defendant has a substantial defence. The application discloses no triable issue. The defence sought to be raised by the Defendant is wholly frivolous and vexatious.
4.It is submitted that the defendant was served with the summons of the case on Date of service of summons with plaint copy along with a copy of the plaint together with annexures. It is, however, stated that the Plaintiff was not obliged, and is not required under law, to supply a copy again once the copy of the plaint along with annexures was initially supplied at the time of service of summons of the suit upon the defendant. The Defendant also failed to file the leave to defend application within the period of ten days provided under Order 37 Rule 3(1) of CPC. In view of the foregoing, the Defendant is not entitled to leave to defend the suit, and the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment/decree forthwith.
5.That with the passage of time, the Plaintiff faced numerous difficulties as the Defendant failed to remit payment of any amount whatsoever to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, therefore, made repeated requests to the Defendant to repay the loan amount. The Plaintiff is under an apprehension that the Defendant is going to sell the mortgaged property, and the Plaintiff has no option but to institute the present suit for recovery of Rs.Suit recovery amount (₹)/- (Rupees Suit recovery amount in words Only) along with interest at 3% per month from the date of execution of the mortgage deed. The Plaintiff also lodged a police complaint against the Defendant on Date of police complaint.
8.That the Defendant approached the Plaintiff on Date of loan demand and demanded a sum of Rs.Loan amount demanded (₹) from the Plaintiff, as he was in dire need of the said money. The Plaintiff shared good relations with the Defendant and reposed trust in him, as he had purchased two properties from the Plaintiff's wife. The Plaintiff accordingly paid the said amount of Rs.Loan amount paid to defendant (₹) to the Defendant, who assured to repay the same shortly. The Plaintiff agreed to give the amount as a loan with interest at 3% per month, whereupon the Defendant mortgaged his property, "entire lower ground floor of the southern side portion of freehold built-up property bearing municipal no. Municipal number of mortgaged property, portion of old plot no. Old plot number of mortgaged property, area measuring 33.33 sq. yds., along with undivided proportionate share in the land underneath, duly fitted with electric and water connections in working order, situated at Location of mortgaged property", in the name of the Plaintiff as security. For the same, a mortgage deed dated Date of mortgage deed and a receipt dated Date of receipt were duly executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the presence of witnesses, and the same were signed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
9.That the Defendant, being the owner of the property, executed the mortgage deed in favour of the Plaintiff on Date of execution of mortgage deed in the presence of two witnesses, namely Names of witnesses to mortgage deed, wherein the Defendant agreed not to sell the said property without liquidating the debt owed to the Plaintiff. The Defendant received a sum of Rs.Mortgage amount received by defendant (₹)/- from the Plaintiff on account of the mortgage of the entire above-said property, and a receipt of the said amount was acknowledged and admitted by the Defendant on Date of acknowledgement of receipt in the presence of two witnesses.
10.That it is pertinent to mention here that the Defendant failed to make payment of the said amount to the Plaintiff within the three months' time agreed upon in the mortgage deed, and when the Plaintiff asked for repayment of the said amount, the Defendant sought more time. The Plaintiff demanded his hard-earned money from the Defendant, but the Defendant continued to make one excuse or another, did not return the said amount, and instead threatened the Plaintiff with dire consequences.
12.That the Plaintiff was shocked when the Defendant threatened to kill the Plaintiff and finish his life. Thereupon, the Plaintiff approached the local police station and filed a complaint against the Defendant. Despite repeated requests to the Defendant for repayment of the loan amount, and in view of the Plaintiff's apprehension that the Defendant is going to sell the mortgaged property, the Plaintiff has no option but to institute the present suit for recovery of Rs.Suit recovery amount (₹)/- (Suit recovery amount in words) along with interest at 3% per month from the date of execution of the mortgage deed.
13.That the defendant accordingly owes to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.Principal amount owed (₹)/- (Principal amount owed in words) towards the principal amount alone. In addition, the defendant is liable to pay overdue interest on the aforesaid principal amount at the rate of Monthly interest rate per month, as stipulated in the mortgage deed dated Date of mortgage deed.
14.That the defendant had not appeared before this Hon'ble Court until Date of defendant's appearance in court, on which date the defendant appeared before this Hon'ble Court and advanced the unsubstantiated plea that payment had already been made to the plaintiff by way of a bank draft and that an acknowledgement therefor was in the defendant's possession. It is pertinent to note that, to date, the defendant has neither produced any such acknowledgement nor any particulars of the alleged bank draft before this Hon'ble Court, and has failed to establish the same. The statement of the defendant is therefore liable to be disbelieved by this Hon'ble Court. In the interest of justice, the opportunity of the defendant to defend his case may accordingly be closed by this Hon'ble Court.
15.That the application under reply is absolutely frivolous and devoid of any merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed, the defendant having miserably failed to make out any ground whatsoever for the present application.
PARAWISE REPLY ON MERITS:-
1-2. That the contents of paras 1-2 of the application are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that the defendant has approached this Hon'ble Court for grant of leave to defend the summary suit instituted by the plaintiff on the basis of true or bona fide facts; the suit having in fact been founded on false, fabricated and concocted facts.
3.That the contents of para 3 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the defendant has sufficient grounds entitling him not merely to defend the present suit but also to establish before this Hon'ble Court that the claim of the plaintiff is a sheer abuse of the process of law. It is further denied that the present suit is an abuse of the process of law, or that, in the true circumstances prevailing in the instant matter, the defendant is likely to succeed in the present suit against the plaintiff.
4.That the contents of para 4 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the suit of the plaintiff does not comply with the ingredients envisaged in Order 37 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is further denied that the present suit is not maintainable under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is further denied that the facts involved in the present suit, as sought to be enumerated by the defendant, require extensive evidence, or that the case of the plaintiff cannot, under any circumstances, be proved without such evidence.
5.That the contents of para 5 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands, or that the plaintiff has deliberately concealed relevant facts and material in furtherance of a deceitful design to earn undue profits by misleading this Hon'ble Court.
6.That the contents of para 6 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the suit filed by the plaintiff suffers from factual lacunae as well as irreparable legal lacunae. It is further denied that the defendant, through the present application for leave to defend, is endeavouring to bring any such lacunae to the kind knowledge of this Hon'ble Court.
7.That the contents of para 7 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the present suit has been filed on the basis of false and fabricated facts, or that the plaintiff has illegally used the legal machinery as an instrument to commit fraud upon the defendant. It is further denied that the plaintiff seeks the right to file an appropriate application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the appropriate stage of this suit.
8.That the contents of para 8 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the entire basis and premise of the suit filed by the plaintiff revolves around an unregistered, un-notarised and fabricated mortgage deed. It is further denied that the said mortgage deed was procured and fabricated by the plaintiff after obtaining the signatures of the defendant on blank papers on the pretext of helping the defendant to obtain a home loan / loan against property.
9.That the contents of para 9 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the plaintiff has concealed material facts from this Hon'ble Court. It is further denied that the plaintiff has concealed that, in the year 2018, the defendant had approached the plaintiff, the plaintiff's wife and one Sh. Name of co-purchaser (property dealer) for the purpose of purchasing a property for a total consideration of Rs. Property purchase consideration (₹)/- (Rupees Property purchase consideration in words Only). It is further denied that at that time the plaintiff, representing himself to be a property dealer having good relations with various banks, assured the defendant that he would assist him in obtaining a home loan / loan against property for the purchase of the said property. It is further denied that the plaintiff in the same breath sought the original documents of the property situated at the ground floor (area measuring 33.33 sq. yds.), southern side portion of the freehold built-up property bearing no. Municipal number of property documents withheld (admeasuring 33.33 sq. yards), forming part of old plot no. Old plot number of property documents withheld, and required the defendant to sign several documents in order to seek a loan against property / home loan from a banking institution / NBFC.
10.That the contents of para 10 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that thereafter the defendant approached the plaintiff on multiple occasions to enquire about the progress of the said loan, and that the plaintiff, instead of giving a direct and true reply, chose to dilly-dally. It is further denied that the defendant thereafter became hopeless and applied for a loan for the purchase of the said property on his own accord. It is further denied that even at that stage the defendant was hopeful that the plaintiff would return the said original documents at the time of registration of the sale deed of the property being purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff's wife, one Mrs. Name of plaintiff's wife (co-seller), the plaintiff and the defendant sharing a friendly bond. It is further denied that the plaintiff, harbouring malice and ulterior motives from the very beginning, and in order to satisfy his never-ending avarice, went on to misuse the said original documents, the signed blank papers and the raseedi tickets.
11.That the contents of para 11 of the application are a matter of want of knowledge and are hence denied.
12.That the contents of para 12 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that, although the plaintiff was present as a witness at the time of registration of the said sale deed, the plaintiff, despite repeated requests and in a cunning manner, did not bring with him the signed blank papers, raseedi tickets and the original documents of the property situated at Location of property documents withheld (admeasuring 33.33 sq. yards), forming part of old plot no. Old plot number of property documents withheld, and promised to return the same at the earliest in the presence of the wife of the defendant.
13.That the contents of para 13 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that, despite his repeated promises, the plaintiff miserably failed to return the said original property documents and the signed blank papers of the defendant. It is further denied that on Date of receipt of summons by defendant, upon receipt of the summons of the present case, the defendant was placed in a state of shock upon realising that the plaintiff had illegally misused the original documents of the property of the defendant and had illegally procured and fabricated an unregistered, un-notarised and illegal mortgage deed over the signed blank pages given by the defendant in trust that the plaintiff would assist him in getting a home loan / loan against property sanctioned.
14.That the contents of paragraph 14 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff has misused the signed blank pages or the original property documents of the Defendant. It is further denied that the Defendant reserves the right to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings as well as a civil suit against the Plaintiff. It is further denied that the Defendant ought to have initiated a criminal case against the Plaintiff but that, since the said case is presently barred under the doctrine of custodia legis, it is only this Hon'ble Court which presently has the power to initiate criminal proceedings against the Plaintiff.
15-16. That the contents of paragraphs 15-16 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the sum of Rs. Alleged cash payment amount (₹)/- allegedly claimed by the Plaintiff and allegedly paid by him in cash is not legal tender in the eyes of law, since the said payment is stated to be far in excess of Rs. Cash transaction limit under tax law (₹)/- (Rupees Cash transaction limit in words).
17-18. That the contents of paragraphs 17-18 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the mere non-registration of the said mortgage deed by the Plaintiff is by itself sufficient to cast a serious shadow of doubt over the case of the Plaintiff; if the claim of the Plaintiff was genuine, or if the Plaintiff had actually paid the said monies to the Defendant, he ought to have got the said mortgage deed registered. It is further denied that, since the said mortgage deed is not registered, any operation arising therefrom is not legal in the eyes of law.
19-20. That the contents of paragraphs 19-20 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that no presumption can be drawn in the present case on the basis of the documents filed by the Plaintiff, since the alleged mortgage deed, which forms the heart and soul of the false claims of the Plaintiff, is unregistered and unnotarised. It is further denied that the alleged unregistered, unnotarised, false and fabricated mortgage deed cannot be admitted in evidence on the basis of which the present summary suit has been filed. It is further denied that no amount is due and payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
21-22. That the contents of paragraphs 21-22 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the sole intention of the Plaintiff in preferring this suit is to illegally harass the Defendant, damage his hard-earned reputation and blackmail him in order to extort money unlawfully. It is further denied that great prejudice would be caused to the Defendant if the present application is not allowed and the Defendant is not given an opportunity to contest the present suit on merits.
23-24. That the contents of paragraphs 23-24 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Defendant has raised triable issues and has a bona fide, reasonable defence, so as to be entitled to leave to defend. It is further denied that the Defendant has a substantial defence to the claim on merits, or that any triable issue arises which requires adjudication before this Hon'ble Court. On this ground alone, the application for leave to defend is liable to be rejected. It is, however, stated that the Defendant has not disclosed any facts entitling him to leave to defend the suit. The affidavit of the Defendant does not disclose facts indicating that he has a substantial defence. The application for leave to defend does not raise any triable issue. Moreover, the defence sought to be raised by the Defendant is wholly frivolous and vexatious.
The prayer clause of the application under reply is wrong and is denied, and the Defendant is not entitled to any relief prayed for.
PRAYER:-
In view of the above reply, it is submitted that the application for leave to defend is absolutely false and frivolous, and the Defendant has miserably failed to make out any defence in his favour for the grant of the relief prayed for; as such, the application is liable to be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the application for leave to defend with costs, and to pass judgment/decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
It is prayed accordingly.
DELHIPLAINTIFF
DATEDTHROUGH
Advocate's name (prayer copy)
Advocate's enrolment or chamber details ADVOCATE
Mob. No. Advocate's mobile number
Email:
IN THE COURT OF Name and designation of the judge;
DIST. CENTRAL; TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
C.S. DJ NO. Case (CS DJ) number OF Year of case number.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendant's name: DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Sh. Deponent's name (affidavit 1), S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name (affidavit 1), R/o Deponent's address (affidavit 1), Deponent's pin code, who do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-
1.That I am the Plaintiff in the above-noted case, am well conversant with the facts of the case, and am therefore competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That I state that the accompanying reply to the application for leave to defend has been drafted under my instructions; I have gone through the same and the contents thereof are true and correct to my knowledge. The contents of the accompanying reply may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit for the sake of brevity and are not repeated herein.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at New Delhi on this Date of verification (affidavit 1) day of July, Year of verification (affidavit 1), that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF Name and designation of the judge;
DIST. CENTRAL; TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
C.S. DJ NO. Case (CS DJ) number OF Year of case number.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendant's name: DEFENDANT
D.O.H.: Date of last hearing
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF TO THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-
1.That the application filed by the Defendant is per se false, is based on invented facts, and is an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court; it is therefore liable to be dismissed outrightly.
2.That on Date of service of summons the Defendant was served with the summons, and since then he has been continuously appearing; however, the Defendant entered appearance before this Hon'ble Court only on Date of entry of appearance by defendant, and the present application for leave to defend has been filed on Date of filing of leave to defend application, whereas the time for filing the application for leave to defend is to be calculated from Start date for computing limitation. On the last date of hearing, i.e. Date of last hearing, the Plaintiff submitted that he had not received a copy of the application and also submitted that he had already shifted from his previous address. Upon this, the Defendant undertook to supply a copy of the same to the Plaintiff within seven days from Date of undertaking to supply copy, but the Defendant failed to supply a copy of the present application under reply within seven days as directed by this Hon'ble Court. Despite the delay in filing the application for leave to defend, the Defendant has disobeyed the order of this Hon'ble Court; as such, the application for leave to defend filed by the Defendant is time-barred and cannot be taken on record. The Defendant has filed an application to condone the delay of four days on the ground that on Date of counsel's alleged illness the counsel for the Defendant had suffered a severe muscle spasm leading to complete immobility of her right hand, being her dominant typing hand. The said plea for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend is a false and made-up plea. The present application has been filed by the Defendant on Date of filing of leave to defend application, which is beyond the statutory period. The Defendant has not come forward with any proper or substantial ground as to why he could not file the application for leave to defend within the stipulated statutory period of ten days as contemplated under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of the CPC.
3.That the present application filed by the defendant has been moved under the wrong provision, namely Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which applies only to applications and appeals and not to pleadings or suits. The present application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
4.That from the above, it is evident that the defendant has taken only a false, vexatious, vague and bald plea, which is otherwise without any substance. The said plea has been taken solely with a view to covering up the defendant's negligence in filing the leave to defend within time.
5.That the defendant has failed to make out any case of exceptional hardship to enable this Hon'ble Court to extend the time for filing the leave to defend.
6.That according to the defendant, the leave to defend was filed on Date leave to defend was filed (as per defendant). It is submitted that the statutory period for filing the leave to defend is 10 days from the date of service of the summons for judgment, and the defendant is required to explain why the leave to defend was filed beyond the said period of 10 days. The defendant has failed to offer any such explanation.
7.It is further submitted that the defendant has not placed any document on record to substantiate the grounds alleged, nor corroborated them by any evidence, which would establish hindrances in filing the leave to defend within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that, in order to delay the proceedings, the defendant deliberately did not file the reply in time.
PARA-WISE REPLY
1.That the contents of para 1 of the application are a matter of record and need no reply.
2.That the contents of para 2 of the application are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the application for leave to defend was filed on Date of filing of leave to defend application, whereas the time for filing the leave to defend is to be computed from Start date for computing limitation. On Date of undertaking to supply copy, the defendant undertook to supply a copy of the application for leave to defend to the plaintiff within seven days of the order dated Date of order for supply of copy, but the defendant failed to supply the same, including in respect of the present application under reply, within seven days as directed by this Hon'ble Court. Despite the delay in filing the application for leave to defend, the defendant has disobeyed the order of this Hon'ble Court. As such, the leave to defend filed by the defendant is time-barred and cannot be taken on record. The defendant has filed an application to condone a delay of 4 days on the ground that on Date of counsel's alleged illness, the counsel for the defendant suffered a severe muscle spasm leading to complete immobility of her right hand, being her dominant typing hand. The said plea for condonation of delay in filing the leave to defend is false and fabricated. The present application was filed by the defendant on Date of filing of leave to defend application, which is beyond the statutory period. The defendant has not disclosed any proper or substantial ground as to why the leave to defend could not be filed within the stipulated statutory period of 10 days as contemplated under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of CPC.
3-8. That the contents of paras 3 to 8 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the counsel for the defendant was prevented from filing the leave to defend within the stipulated time. It is further denied that the delay in filing the leave to defend was neither deliberate nor intentional on the part of the defendant, or that it was due to good and sufficient reasons. It is further denied that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the delay is condoned. It is further denied that the defendant has always been diligent in pursuing the matter. It is further denied that the present application is bona fide. It is evident that the defendant has taken only a false, vexatious, vague and bald plea, which is otherwise without substance and has been taken solely with a view to covering up the defendant's negligence in filing the leave to defend within time. It is further submitted that, according to the defendant, the leave to defend was filed on Date leave to defend was filed (as per defendant). The statutory period for filing the leave to defend is 10 days from the date of service of the summons for judgment, and the defendant is required to explain why the leave to defend was filed beyond the said period of 10 days. The defendant has failed to offer any such explanation.
PRAYER
In light of the reply given hereinabove, it is submitted that the present application is an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
i)Dismiss the application with costs, and take the leave to defend filed on record off the record.
ii) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint.
iii) Pass such further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
PLACE: DELHIPLAINTIFF
THROUGH
DATED: Date of signing (condonation reply)
ADVOCATE
Advocate's name (condonation reply)
Mob. No. --------------------
Email: --------------------
IN THE COURT OF Name and designation of the judge
DIST. CENTRAL; TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
C.S. DJ NO. Case (CS DJ) number OF Year of case number.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendant's name: DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Sh. Deponent's name (affidavit 2), S/o Father's name (affidavit 2), R/o Address of deponent (affidavit 2), Deponent's pin code, who do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-
1.That I am the plaintiff in the above-noted case, am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, and am therefore competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the accompanying reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been drafted on my instructions. I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying reply, and the same are true and correct to my knowledge; no part of it is false, and nothing material has been concealed therein.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this Date of verification (affidavit 2) day of Month of verification (affidavit 2), Year of verification (affidavit 2) that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and nothing material has been concealed therein.
DEPONENT