IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
NEW DELHI DISTRICT; Court complex number COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT NO. Civil suit number OF 20Year of suit
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
First defendant's name & ANR.: DEFENDANTS
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NO. 2 TO THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
1.That the present application is liable to be dismissed, inasmuch as the relief claimed in the plaint and the relief claimed in the application under reply are one and the same; and if the relief sought in the present application is granted, it would amount to decreeing the suit at an interlocutory stage.
2.That the application under reply is not maintainable as laid, since it lacks the essential ingredient for the filing of such an application, namely, the averment that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss in the event of non-grant of the relief claimed in the application under reply.
REPLY ON MERITS:
1.That the contents of paragraph 1 of the application are a matter of record and need no reply. However, the answering defendant has filed its detailed written statement, and the contents thereof are true and correct to the knowledge of the defendant. The said written statement may kindly be read as an integral part of this reply, as its contents are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
2.That the contents of paragraph 2 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that, in terms of the said agreement, the said property was to be constructed up to the second floor, and that the owner was entitled to the basement measuring approximately 600 sq. ft., the ground floor with front and rear set-backs, the open terrace over and above the second floor, the driveway (adjoining Property number), the use of the common areas, and the proportionate, undivided, indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the said property. It is further denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the second floor, or that he has come to know that Mr. Director's name, Director of Company name Pvt. Ltd., has purchased the share of the erstwhile owner. It is further denied that the said purchasers have purchased the said share in piecemeal, thereby affecting the very nature of the property in question. It is further denied that the said property was impartible in nature and could not have been purchased in piecemeal. It is further denied that the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of Purchaser company name Pvt. Ltd., which mentions/defines the share of the purchaser as 20% indivisible undivided rights, itself demystifies the malicious act done during the registration of the terrace portion. The said document may kindly be read as an integral part of this reply, as its contents are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
3.That the contents of paragraph 3 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the action of the purchasers/defendant no. 2, apart from being invalid, places the undersigned in a detrimental position, in that the share of the undersigned in the ground underneath the building on the property is affected by their shares in the property. It is further denied that the purchaser was completely aware of the limitations set forth in the collaboration agreement, or that he was aware that he was bound by the same. It is further denied that, as per well-settled law, no one can claim unjust enrichment. It is further denied that, even as per the collaboration agreement, the total floor area ratio sanctioned on the said plot of land by the MCD has been equally divided between all the floors, i.e., the ground, first and second floors, and therefore, by specifically mentioning and conveying a 20% share as stated hereinabove, the defendant no. 2 has purported to purchase rights in the property in excess of what he could. It is further denied that the defendant no. 2 has intentionally executed an invalid and void deed behind the back of the plaintiff and by misleading the defendant no. 1, in order to increase his share in the property and thereby decrease the share of the plaintiff in the said property. It is further denied that the execution of both the sale deeds in favour of the defendant no. 2 has detrimentally affected the plaintiff. The said deeds may kindly be read as an integral part of this reply, as their contents are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
4.That the contents of paragraph 4 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the plaintiff has learnt from reliable sources that the defendant no. 2 is attempting to dispose of a portion of the said impartible property and is inclined to transfer/alienate the share in the property as wrongly or inadvertently mentioned in the impugned sale deeds. It is further denied that, although the plaintiff tried to convince the defendant no. 2 not to do so, as it cannot be done in the present situation, no heed has been paid to such requests. The said contention is denied in its entirety.
5.That the contents of paragraph 5 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the plaintiff has a good prima facie case in his favour, or that he is likely to succeed in the present case. The plaintiff has no case at all, let alone a good prima facie case. However, the answering defendants have filed their detailed written statement, and the contents thereof are true and correct to the knowledge of the defendants. The said written statement may kindly be read as an integral part of this reply, as its contents are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
6.That the contents of paragraph 6 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. It is further denied that the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, if the defendant is not restrained from taking any detrimental action against the suit property without following due process of law. However, the answering defendants have filed their detailed written statement, and the contents thereof are true and correct to the knowledge of the defendants. The said written statement may kindly be read as an integral part of this reply, as its contents are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
That the prayer clauses of the application are redundant and irrelevant to the subject suit, as explained hereinabove, and are therefore denied in their entirety. The plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.
PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the application of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs in favour of the answering defendant and against the plaintiff, for dragging the answering defendant into frivolous litigation, in the interest of justice, equity and having regard to the circumstances of the case.
Pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and such orders may kindly be passed in favour of the answering defendant, in the interest of justice.
It is prayed accordingly.
DELHIDEFENDANT NO. 2
DATED:THROUGH
Advocate's name
(Advocate)
Counsel for Defendant No. 2
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
NEW DELHI DISTRICT; Court complex number COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT NO. Civil suit number OF 20Year of suit
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
First defendant's name First defendant's description & ANR.: DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Sh. Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, Director of M/s. Deponent's company name Pvt. Ltd., having its office at Company office address, Pin code, who does hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I am the Director of the defendant no. 2 company in the above-noted matter, am well conversant with the facts of the case, and am competent to swear the present affidavit.
2.That the contents of the accompanying reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, and the same have been read over and explained to me in my vernacular language. The said reply may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit, and the same is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Place of verification on this Date of verification day of Month and year of verification, that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part thereof is false, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT