IN THE COURT OF Name of the court, DELHI
CS/Suit number/Year of suit
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendants' names: DEFENDANTS
N.D.O.H: Date of next hearing
| 1. | WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1, NAMELY Defendant no.1's name, DEFENDANT NO. 2, NAMELY Defendant no.2's name, AND DEFENDANT NO. 3, NAMELY Defendant no.3's name, IN THE CAPTIONED SUIT, ALONG WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS | |
| 2. | REPLY ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1, NAMELY Defendant no.1's name, DEFENDANT NO. 2, NAMELY Defendant no.2's name, AND DEFENDANT NO. 3, NAMELY Defendant no.3's name, TO THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, ALONG WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS | |
| 3. | APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE ACCOMPANYING WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS NOS. 1 TO 3, ALONG WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS | |
DELHIDEFENDANTS NOS. 1 TO 3
(Through SPA holder)
THROUGH
DATED
SPA holder's name and address
Name of the court
Suit number
Counsel's address
IN THE COURT OF Name of the court, DELHI
CS/Suit number/Year of suit
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendants' names: DEFENDANTS
N.D.O.H: Date of next hearing
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1, DEFENDANT NO. 2 AND DEFENDANT NO. 3, VIZ. Defendant no.1's name, Defendant no.2's name AND Defendant no.3's name
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
At the outset, it is submitted that the Plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold, as the reliefs sought therein are not only legally untenable but the Suit has also been instituted by concealment of material facts, information and crucial documents. Before adverting to the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the Suit and the para-wise reply to the averments contained in the Plaint, a brief but true factual narrative is set out below in order to place the correct position before this Hon'ble Court.
TRUE AND CORRECT FACTUAL NARRATIVE BY WAY OF PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:
a.That Name of brother of common ancestor S/o Khasra number of the joint property and Khata number of the joint property were brothers, and upon the demise of their father, they admittedly became the owners of 975 sq. yds. in Khasra No. Village name, Khata No. Village pin code, situated in the Abadi of village Name of recorded owner of half share, Delhi-Father's name of recorded owner.
b.Admittedly, Khasra number of the joint property S/o Late Khata number of the joint property was the recorded owner of 487.5 sq. yds. in Khasra No. Village name, Khata No. Village pin code, situated in the Abadi of village Name of deceased recorded owner, Delhi-Name of first son, and was in separate, divided and exclusive possession of his share. Admittedly, after the death of Late Name of second son, his sons, namely Name of original purchaser from sons and Khasra number of suit property, conveyed ownership of 353.5 sq. yds. in Khasra No. Village name, Khata No. Village pin code, situated in the Abadi of village Description of portion of property, Delhi-Description of portion of property, being the Name of seller portion, in favour of Name of first purchaser.
c.Admittedly, the Suit Property was thereafter sold by Name of second purchaser to Name of first seller and Name of second seller vide registered Irrevocable GPA dated 14.07.2005, ATS dated 14.07.2005, Will dated 14.07.2005, Affidavit dated 14.07.2005 and Receipt dated 14.07.2005.
d.Admittedly, the Suit Property was thereafter sold by Name of first purchaser and Name of second purchaser to Name of first seller and Name of second seller vide registered Sale Deed dated 09.03.2007.
e.Admittedly, the Suit Property was thereafter sold by Name of first answering defendant and Name of second answering defendant to Name of third answering defendant, Description of answering defendants and Fractional share, vide registered Sale Deed dated 09.08.2012. It is in this manner that the answering defendants admittedly became the bona fide owners of the Suit Property.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE SUIT:
a.WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, THE PRESENT SUIT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS IT SEEKS A 'PARTIAL PARTITION' OF THE PROPERTY:
•It is admitted in the Plaint itself that the answering defendants are the owners of 353.5 sq. yds. out of the Fractional share share, i.e., 475 sq. yds. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the shares of Name of first co-owner and Name of second co-owner, jointly admeasuring 975 sq. yds., are under joint ownership, and that since the shares of Fractional share and Name of first co-owner are jointly held, the Suit Property also forms part of the joint ownership, the said parties having inherited the share of Name of second co-owner. However, notably, the alleged partition has been sought only in respect of the Suit Property, admeasuring 353.5 sq. yds., and not in respect of the entire 975 sq. yds. Thus, even on the basis of the pleadings and averments contained in the Plaint, the Suit deserves dismissal at the threshold, as it seeks a partition in part, i.e., of the Suit Property admeasuring 353.5 sq. yds., instead of a partition of the entire 975 sq. yds. alleged to be the joint share of Name of defendant no.9 and Address of Jitender Kumar Sharma.
b.WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, THE NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE SUIT, AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHALLENGE TO THE ERSTWHILE AS WELL AS THE PRESENT TITLE DOCUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ANSWERING DEFENDANTS IN RESPECT OF THE SUIT PROPERTY, RENDER THE SUIT LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AT THE THRESHOLD:
Reference is made to paragraph 10 of the Plaint, wherein specific reference has been made to the other connected first Suit filed by Defendant No. 9, namely Address of Basanti Devi. Admittedly, in the first Suit, the answering defendants and the other defendants categorically and unequivocally disclosed that the answering defendants are the owners of the Suit Property. The answering defendants further filed the title documents in the first Suit, which expressly set out the details of the erstwhile owners as well as the title documents. Thus, despite having active knowledge of the existence of the erstwhile title documents and the erstwhile title holders, neither have the erstwhile title documents been challenged till date, nor have the present title documents in favour of the answering defendants been challenged in the present Suit. It is further noteworthy that the erstwhile title holders/erstwhile owners of the Suit Property have neither been impleaded in the present Suit nor has any relief been sought against them. In light of the foregoing, it is evident that the Suit is liable to be dismissed on account of the non-joinder of necessary parties and the absence of any challenge to the erstwhile and present title documents in favour of the answering defendants.
c.WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, THE SUIT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS IT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION IN RESPECT OF ALL THE RELIEFS SOUGHT:
The Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, as is apparent from the averments and pleadings of the Plaintiff. Admittedly, the essential paragraph of the Plaint, namely "when the cause of action for filing the Plaint arose", is missing from the averments in the Plaint. On this count alone, the Suit deserves dismissal. Even, for the sake of argument, if such a glaring illegality were to be overlooked and an attempt were made to decipher the cause of action from the pleadings, it is evident that the present Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation on the basis of the following foundational facts:
•The Plaintiff has, in the present Suit, acknowledged the filing of the first Suit by Defendant No. 9, i.e., the Plaintiff's brother, in January 2020. However, the present relief of declaration is being sought in the present Suit in August 2023, i.e., after a period of more than three years. Upon the filing of the present Suit, the answering defendants were taken aback by the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-à-vis the title to the Suit Property. Accordingly, the answering defendants made inquiries with the erstwhile owners and learnt that, even in the past, legal proceedings had been instituted between Late Sh. Name of deceased litigant Name of first compromising party, Name of litigant Name of second compromising party, and others, on the one hand, and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property, Name of erstwhile owner, on the other. Despite diligent efforts over the last two months, the answering defendants have been able to procure only certain documents, namely the Statement of Number of compromised suit, whereby Name of erstwhile owner compromised Suit No. Name of first plaintiff in old suit with the erstwhile owner, Husband's name of first plaintiff, titled as Name of second plaintiff in old suit W/o Father's name of second plaintiff and Name of first defendant in old suit S/o Husband's name of first defendant Vs. Name of second defendant in old suit W/o Name of third defendant in old suit, Name of plaintiff in first suit, Name of first co-owner and Ors. The answering defendants have, as of now, been able to procure only three pages thereof, and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same are procured. The Plaintiff ought to be put to strict proof in this regard, since, despite being aware of the prior settlement of the dispute, if any, the Plaintiff has filed the present Suit unnecessarily and without any legal basis. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled, and in light of this fact, the present Suit deserves dismissal by virtue of Order 2 Rule 2 read with Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the cause of action, if any, stood exhausted as far back as in 1995/96. The Suit is, accordingly, hopelessly barred by limitation.
•The relief of partition is not maintainable, inasmuch as only a 'part partition' is sought by the Plaintiff.
•Furthermore, the relief of possession has neither been valued in the Plaint, nor has any court fee been paid thereon. Thus, no basis whatsoever has been made out to seek the relief of possession. In any event, the Plaintiff admittedly has not been in possession of the Suit Property for more than Years of non-possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. Hence, even the relief of possession is not legally sustainable.
Basis the settled jurisprudence on the aforesaid issues, and the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereon, the Suit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
d.WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL BEING BARRED UNDER ORDER-2, RULE-2 ON ACCOUNT OF THE ERSTWHILE SUIT, NAMELY THE 1ST SUIT:
Admittedly, the Plaintiff, by his own admission in the Plaint, acknowledges that he was duly aware of the 1st Suit filed by the Defendant No. 9 / his brother. Admittedly, the 1st Suit was filed in Date/month of filing of the first suit. It is further an admitted position on record that Order-2, Rule-2 mandates that a plaintiff must include his entire claim arising from a specific cause of action in one lawsuit; if the plaintiff, intentionally or unintentionally, omits a part of the claim, he cannot file a separate suit in respect thereof without the permission of the Court. In any event, the present Suit is also barred on account of the erstwhile Suit pending in this Hon'ble Court. It is an admitted position that the Plaintiff was aware of the 1st Suit from its inception; thus, no refuge can be taken in the contention that he was unaware of the 1st Suit. The present Suit is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this count alone.
e.WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A PERUSAL OF THE 1ST SUIT FILED BY GAURAV SHARMA [THE DEFENDANT NO. 9] SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT SUIT IS NOT ONLY A COLLUSIVE SUIT BUT IS A CONTUMACIOUS ATTEMPT TO USURP THE SUIT PROPERTY:
Following instances/particulars, as decipherable from the pleadings of the parties, lead to the unequivocal conclusion that the present Suit has been filed not only as a collusive suit but also mala fide and in order to extort money from the answering Defendants. Such instances inter alia include:
•Reference to the memo of parties shows that the address of the Plaintiff, i.e. Name of plaintiff in first suit, in the 1st Suit and Name of second co-owner /Plaintiff in the present Suit is similar.
•At the instance of the 1st Suit itself, the Plaintiff in the 1st Suit knew that he or his family members were in no manner owners of the Suit Property. Admittedly, the Plaintiff in the present Suit also confirms that the filing of the 1st Suit was within his knowledge. Thus, when a prayer for partition is allegedly sought vide the present Suit, it is undecipherable as to how, in the 1st Suit, the Plaintiff therein claimed to be the owner of the Suit Property.
•Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of Name of first litigant and Address of first litigant is around Area of the joint partitionable land. However, the alleged partition is sought only for around Area of the suit property. The only untenable explanation offered is that the rest of the portion is under illegal possession, and thus the alleged partition is sought only qua the Suit Property, i.e. Area of the suit property. The aforesaid speaks volumes about the conduct and the real intent/motive of the Plaintiff and his family members.
•Even in the past, legal proceedings had been instituted between Name of second litigant Address of second litigant, Name of erstwhile owner Number of withdrawn suit, etc. and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Name of person who withdrew suit, being Suit No. Name of first co-owner, and the same was withdrawn by Name of second co-owner, i.e. the 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; thus, in light of the aforesaid facts, the present Suit deserves dismissal on account of Order-2, Rule-2 read with Section-11 of CPC.
f.WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL ON ACCOUNT OF PECUNIARY LIMIT/JURISDICTION AND ON THE COUNT OF ERRONEOUS VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND NON-PAYMENT OF COURT FEE ON THE RELIEF OF POSSESSION:
Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of Name of first litigant and Address of first litigant is around Area of the joint partitionable land. However, the alleged partition is sought only for around Area of the suit property, and accordingly the Suit is valued at Suit valuation amount. It is settled law that a Suit for partition cannot be entertained in part, and thus, for determining the pecuniary limit, the valuation ought to be as per the complete partitionable land, i.e. Area of the joint partitionable land, as alleged by the Plaintiff himself. If that be so, the Suit, for the basis of pecuniary limit, would be valued at around Suit valuation based on the full partitionable land, which clearly disentitles this Hon'ble Court from proceeding further. The Suit deserves dismissal on this count alone.
g.WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL WITH COSTS ON ACCOUNT OF MATERIAL CONCEALMENT OF PREVIOUS SETTLEMENTS IN SUITS WITH THE ERSTWHILE OWNERS:
That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit, the answering Defendants were aghast at the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-à-vis the title to the Suit Property. In lieu thereof, the answering Defendants made enquiries from the erstwhile owners and learnt that even in the past, legal proceedings had been instituted between Name of second litigant Address of second litigant, Name of erstwhile owner Name of first compromising party, etc. and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Name of second compromising party. In spite of diligent efforts over the last Period of diligent efforts to procure documents, the answering Defendants could only procure some documents, being the Statement of Number of compromised suit, Name of erstwhile owner having compromised Suit No. Name of first plaintiff in old suit with the erstwhile owner – Husband's name of first plaintiff, titled as Name of second plaintiff in old suit W/o Father's name of second plaintiff and Name of first defendant in old suit S/o Husband's name of first defendant Vs Name of second defendant in old suit W/o Name of third defendant in old suit, Name of predecessor-in-title, Name of common ancestor and Ors. The answering Defendants could procure only Number of pages of documents procured pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same are procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict proof on the same, as in spite of being aware of the prior settlement of the dispute, if any, the Plaintiff has unnecessarily and without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled; thus, in light of the aforesaid facts, the present Suit deserves dismissal on account of Order-2, Rule-2 read with Section-11 of CPC.
h.WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ALLEGED WILL DATED Date of the alleged will, BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE GRANDFATHER OF THE PLAINTIFF BECAME THE OWNER OF THE SUIT PROPERTY, HAS NEITHER BEEN ATTACHED NOR HAS ANY PROOF QUA ITS CONTENTS BEEN FILED ON RECORD. THUS, ON THIS GROUND ALONE, THE SUIT 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 made in para-1 are not within the personal knowledge of the answering Defendants. However, the answering Defendants would acquiesce in the averments of the said para if proved on record by the Plaintiff. That the contents of the preliminary submissions and objections 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 the devolution of title of the answering Defendants emanates from Name of deceased common ancestor. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Name of first son, pursuant to an Oral Partition, acquired Area of the joint partitionable land, and after the death of Name of second son, the said Area of the joint partitionable land devolved solely upon his two (2) sons, namely Name of predecessor-in-title and Name of common ancestor, whereby both sons admittedly acquired Area of each son's half share of the joint land each, respectively. It is further submitted that both 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 the Plaintiff or any of his family members over the Suit Property has ever been filed on record. The family tree so filed is denied for want of knowledge. That the contents of the preliminary submissions and objections 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 the devolution of title of the answering Defendants emanates from Name of deceased common ancestor. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Name of first son, pursuant to an Oral Partition, acquired Area of the joint partitionable land, and after the death of Name of second son, the said Area of the joint partitionable land devolved solely upon his two (2) sons, namely Fractional share and Fractional share, whereby both sons admittedly acquired Area of each son's half share of the joint land each, respectively. It is further submitted that both 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 the Plaintiff or any of his family members over 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 Area of the suit property out of Fractional share Share, i.e. Area of each son's half share of the joint land. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Name of first co-owner share and the Name of second co-owner share are jointly admeasuring Area of the joint partitionable land, and that as the shares of Fractional share and Name of first co-owner are under joint ownership, the Suit Property also forms part of the joint ownership, as they have inherited the Name of second co-owner share. However, interestingly, the alleged partition has been sought only of the Suit Property, which is Area of the suit property, and not of Area of the joint partitionable land. Thus, even on the basis of the pleadings/averments in the Plaint, the Suit deserves dismissal at the threshold on account of seeking an alleged partition in part, i.e. the Suit Property being Area of the suit property, instead of seeking an alleged partition of Area of the joint partitionable land, being the alleged joint share of Khasra number of suit property and Village name. Therefore, it is denied that at present the undivided portion in the property measuring Area of the suit property out of Khasra No. Village pin code situated at Village Name of handicapped deceased owner, Delhi-Name of grandfather of plaintiff, out of the total property, i.e. Area of the joint partitionable land, is available for the purpose of partition among the parties to the suit, since the remaining portion of the property is in the illegal and unlawful possession of other occupants. It is further denied that the aforesaid portion of Area of the suit property, shown in red colour in the site plan as Annexure-P/3, is available for partition. That any claim of Fractional undivided share claimed by the plaintiff undivided share in Area of the suit property, which comes to Area of the plaintiff's claimed share as the share of the Plaintiff, is legally untenable and incomprehensible. That the contents of the preliminary submissions and objections 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 Name of grandfather of plaintiff, handicapped and unmarried, who bequeathed his share, including the share in the suit property, by virtue of a Will Deed dated Date of the alleged will in favour of the grandfather of the Plaintiff, namely Name of adoptive father. It is submitted that the alleged Will dated Date of the alleged will has neither been attached with the suit, nor have the contents of the same been either stated or proved in the suit. It is submitted that without attaching the alleged Will, no reliance can be placed thereon. Without prejudice, the answering Defendants reserve their right to reply and plead further once the alleged Will is brought on record. That the contents of the preliminary submissions and objections 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 Year of the 1960 suit, the grandfather of the Plaintiff, namely Name of original owner, who claimed to be an adopted son of Name of executor of 1956 will and also the successor of Name of beneficiary of 1956 will by virtue of the Will dated Date of the alleged will executed by Name of plaintiff in 1960 suit in favour of Name of plaintiff in 1960 suit. It is further denied that Name of defendant in 1960 suit had filed civil suit no. Number of the civil suit filed in 1960 titled as Name of deceased owner of land vs Fractional share and Ors. before the Court of the Ld. Sub-Judge, Delhi, for a suit for possession of the land of Name of deceased owner of land, i.e. the Name of grandfather of plaintiff share of the land measuring Land area referred to in the 1960 suit of the deceased RCA appeal number land. It is further denied that the aforesaid Name of beneficiary of will, grandfather of the Plaintiff, had filed an appeal vide RCA No. Description of land against the aforesaid judgment/decree dated Date of the 1961 judgment/decree before the Ld. ADJ, Delhi, which was partly allowed vide order dated Date of the 1962 order of the first appellate court, wherein it was held that Name of first respondent in appeal became owner of the land of Name of second respondent in appeal by virtue of the Will Deed dated Date of the alleged will, vide its order dated Date of the 1962 order of the first appellate court. It is further denied that the two respondents, namely Number of second appeal and Name of grandfather of plaintiff, in the said appeal had filed a second appeal vide RCA No. Name of grandfather of plaintiff against the judgment of the First Appellate 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/judgment dated Date of the 1962 order of the first appellate court passed by the First Appellate Court, wherein it was proved that the said Will Deed dated Date of the alleged will was proved by the grandfather of the Plaintiff, namely Name of original owner. That the contents of the preliminary submissions and objections 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 para no. 6 of the captioned suit are wrong and hence specifically denied. It is denied that the grandfather of the Plaintiff, namely Name of executor of 1956 will, was successor of Name of beneficiary of 1956 will by virtue of the Will dated Date of the alleged will executed by Name of first deceased owner in favour of Name of first deceased owner in respect of the properties of Name of second deceased owner, and that the suit property is originally part of the properties of the deceased Name of predecessor-in-title and Name of first co-owner. It is submitted that the alleged Will dated Date of the alleged will has neither been attached with the suit, nor have the contents of the same been either stated or proved in the suit. It is submitted that without attaching the alleged Will, no reliance can be placed thereon. Without prejudice, the answering Defendants reserve their right to reply and plead further once the alleged Will is brought on record. That the contents of the preliminary submissions and objections 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 Paras-7 and 8:
7.That the contents of paras nos. 7 and 8 of the captioned suit are admitted to the extent that the Defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 have claimed to have purchased the suit property from the successors of Name of second co-owner. It is denied that, since no partition had taken place between Name of predecessor-in-title and Name of deceased common ancestor in respect of the suit property in their lifetime, the Defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 are in possession of the undivided portion of the suit property. It is further denied that they have stepped into the shoes of the successors of Kale and hence are in possession of the suit property as co-owners only, and cannot claim to have purchased any specific portion of the suit property by virtue of their sale documents. It is submitted that the devolution of title of the answering Defendants emanates from Name of second son. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Name of common ancestor, pursuant to an Oral Partition, acquired Area of the joint partitionable land, and after the death of Address of Jitender Kumar Sharma, the said Area of the joint partitionable land devolved solely upon his two (2) sons, namely Late Sh. Name of first son and Address of Basanti Devi, whereby both sons admittedly acquired Area of each son's half share of the joint land each, respectively. It is further submitted that both 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 the Plaintiff or any of his family members over the Suit Property has ever been filed on record. That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit, the answering Defendants were aghast at the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-à-vis the title to the Suit Property. In lieu thereof, the answering Defendants made enquiries from the erstwhile owners and learnt that even in the past, legal proceedings had been instituted between Late Sh. Name of deceased litigant Name of erstwhile owner, Name of litigant Name of first compromising party, etc. and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Name of second compromising party. In spite of diligent efforts over the last Period of diligent efforts to procure documents, the answering Defendants could only procure some documents, being the Statement of Number of compromised suit, Name of erstwhile owner having compromised Suit No. Name of first plaintiff in old suit with the erstwhile owner – Husband's name of first plaintiff, titled as Name of second plaintiff in old suit W/o Father's name of second plaintiff and Name of first defendant in old suit S/o Husband's name of first defendant Vs Name of second defendant in old suit W/o Name of third defendant in old suit, Name of plaintiff in first suit, Name of plaintiff in first suit and Ors. The answering Defendants could procure only Number of pages of documents procured pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same are procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict proof on the same, as in spite of being aware of the prior settlement of the dispute, if any, the Plaintiff has unnecessarily and without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled; thus, in light of the aforesaid facts, the present Suit deserves dismissal on account of Order-2, Rule-2 read with Section-11 of CPC. It is denied that the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 4 to 9 are also co-owners in the suit property and are therefore legally entitled to get their share in the partition of the suit property by metes and bounds. That the contents of the preliminary submissions and objections 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 Date of the legal notice was received by the answering Defendants. That the contents of the preliminary submissions and objections 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 in spite of the fact that Name of plaintiff in present suit/Defendant No. 9 knew that the ownership of the Suit Property is with the answering Defendants, the answering Defendants were still not impleaded. Furthermore, the 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 out the requisite repairs. With reference to the 1st Suit, the following instances/particulars, as decipherable from the pleadings of the parties, lead to the unequivocal conclusion that the present Suit has been filed not only as a collusive suit but also mala fide and in order to extort money from the answering Defendants. Such instances inter alia include:
•Reference to the memo of parties shows that the address of the Plaintiff, i.e. Name of first co-owner, in the 1st Suit and Name of second co-owner/Plaintiff in the present Suit is similar.
•At the instance of the 1st Suit itself, the Plaintiff in the 1st Suit knew that he or his family members were in no manner owners of the Suit Property. Admittedly, the Plaintiff in the present Suit also confirms that the filing of the 1st Suit was within his knowledge. Thus, when a prayer for partition is allegedly sought vide the present Suit, it is undecipherable as to how, in the 1st Suit, the Plaintiff therein claimed to be the owner of the Suit Property.
•Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of Name of first litigant and Address of first litigant is around Area of the joint partitionable land. However, the alleged partition is sought only for around Area of the suit property. The only untenable explanation offered is that the rest of the portion is under illegal possession, and thus the alleged partition is sought only qua the Suit Property, i.e. Area of the suit property. The aforesaid speaks volumes about the conduct and the real intent/motive of the Plaintiff and his family members.
•Even in the past, legal proceedings had been instituted between Name of second litigant Address of second litigant, Name of erstwhile owner Number of withdrawn suit, etc. and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Name of person who withdrew suit, being Suit No. Address of Jitender Kumar Sharma, and the same was withdrawn by Name of second litigant, i.e. the 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; thus, in light of the aforesaid facts, the present Suit deserves dismissal on account of Order-2, Rule-2 read with Section-11 of CPC.
Reply to Paras-11 and 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 submissions and objections 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 benefit. The Suit Property is the 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 Defendants No. 1 to 3 have illegally claimed to be the absolute owners of the suit property and denied the claim of the Plaintiff to be an owner of the suit property, therefore making it necessary to seek a declaration to the effect that the Plaintiff is also a co-owner of the suit property along with the other co-owners. That the contents of the preliminary submissions and objections 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 Paras-13 and 14:
11.That in response to the contents of paras nos. 13 and 14 of the said suit, the contents of the preliminary submissions and objections 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 Defendants, especially the Defendants 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 submissions and objections 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 to the averments and pleadings of the Plaintiff. Admittedly, an 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 a glaring illegality is overlooked and an attempt is made to decipher the cause of action from the pleadings, it is 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 the filing of the 1st Suit by the Defendant No. 9, i.e. the Plaintiff's brother, in Date/month of filing of the first suit. However, the present relief for declaration is being sought vide the present Suit in Date/month of filing of the present suit, i.e. after more than Period of delay in filing the present suit. That pursuant to the filing of the present Suit, the answering Defendants were aghast at the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-à-vis the title to the Suit Property. In lieu thereof, the answering Defendants made enquiries from the erstwhile owners and learnt that even in the past, legal proceedings had been instituted between Late Sh. Name of deceased litigant Address of second litigant, Name of erstwhile owner Name of first compromising party, etc. and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property being Name of second compromising party. In spite of diligent efforts over the last Period of diligent efforts to procure documents, the answering Defendants could only procure some documents, being the Statement of Number of compromised suit, Name of erstwhile owner having compromised Suit No. Name of first plaintiff in old suit with the erstwhile owner – Husband's name of first plaintiff, titled as Name of second plaintiff in old suit W/o Father's name of second plaintiff and Husband's name of Ramwati S/o Name of second defendant in old suit Vs Smt. Name of third defendant in old suit W/o Counsel's name, Counsel's enrolment or chamber details and Ors. The answering Defendants could procure only Number of pages of documents procured pages as of now and reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same are procured. The Plaintiff be put to strict proof on the same, as in spite of being aware of the prior settlement of the dispute, if any, the Plaintiff has unnecessarily and without any legal basis filed the present Suit. Admittedly, the said Suit was duly compromised and settled; thus, in light of the aforesaid facts, the present Suit deserves dismissal on account of Order-2, Rule-2 read with Section-11 of CPC. Therefore, the cause of action, if any, had been exhausted way back in Period when the cause of action was allegedly exhausted. Thus, the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
•The relief of partition is not maintainable, inasmuch as only a 'part partition' is sought by the Plaintiff.
•Furthermore, the relief of possession has neither been valued in the Plaint, nor has any court fee been paid thereon. Thus, no basis whatsoever has been made out to seek the relief of possession. In any event, the Plaintiff admittedly has not been in possession of the Suit Property for more than Years of non-possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. Hence, even the relief of possession is not legally sustainable.
Basis the settled jurisprudence on the aforesaid issues, and the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereon, 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 in the said para is wrong, as admittedly the 1st Suit had been filed with the 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 are liable to be dismissed in light of the above preliminary submissions, preliminary objections and responses hereinabove.
Place of signingDEFENDANTS NO. 1 TO 3
(THROUGH SPA HOLDER)
THROUGH
DATEDDate of signing
Counsel's address.
Date of verification.
Name of the court.
Counsel's address.
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this Suit number day of January, 2024, that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 17 of the written statement are true and correct to the knowledge of the answering defendant and as per legal information received and believed to be true; further, the contents of paragraphs (a) to (h) of the preliminary submissions and objections are true and correct to the knowledge of the answering defendants and as per legal information received and believed to be true.
The answering defendants accordingly pray before this Hon'ble Court.
DEFENDANTS NO. 1 TO 3
(THROUGH SPA HOLDER)
IN THE COURT OF Plaintiff's name, LD. ADJ
EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI
CS/Name of first defendant
IN THE MATTER OF:
Fractional share: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Fractional share & ORS.: 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 a written statement to the plaint in the above-noted suit, which is pending before this Hon'ble Court. The answering defendants crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to and rely upon the pleas taken therein as part and parcel of the present reply.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
a.WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE PRESENT SUIT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE PLAINTIFF SEEKING 'PART PARTITION' OF THE PROPERTY:
It is admitted in the plaint itself that the answering defendants are the owners of 353.5 sq. yds. out of Fractional share share, i.e., 475 sq. yds. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the shares of Name of first co-owner and Name of second co-owner are jointly admeasuring 975 sq. yds., and that as the shares of Fractional share and Name of first co-owner are under joint ownership, the Suit Property also forms part of the joint ownership, the parties having inherited the share of Name of second co-owner. However, the alleged partition has been sought only of the Suit Property, i.e., 353.5 sq. yds., and not of the entire 975 sq. yds. Thus, even on the basis of the pleadings and averments in the plaint, the suit deserves dismissal at the threshold on account of the alleged partition having been sought in part, i.e., in respect of the Suit Property admeasuring 353.5 sq. yds., instead of in respect of the entire 975 sq. yds. being the alleged joint share of Name of defendant no.9 and Name of first litigant.
b.WITHOUT PREJUDICE, NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE SUIT AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY 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 paragraph 10 of the plaint, wherein specific reference has been made to the other connected suit (the "1st Suit") filed by Defendant No. 9, Address of first litigant. Admittedly, in the 1st Suit, the answering defendants and the other defendants had categorically and unequivocally disclosed that the answering defendants are the owners of the Suit Property. The answering defendants had further filed the title documents in the 1st Suit, which explicitly set out the details of the erstwhile owners as well as the title documents. Thus, despite having active knowledge of the existence of the erstwhile title documents as well as the erstwhile title holders, neither the erstwhile title documents nor the present title documents in favour of the answering defendants have been challenged in the present suit till date. It is further noteworthy that the erstwhile title holders/erstwhile owners of the Suit Property have not been impleaded in the present suit, nor has any relief been sought against them. In light of the aforesaid, it is evident that the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties and the absence of any challenge to the erstwhile and present title documents in favour 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, as is evident from the averments and pleadings of the Plaintiff. Admittedly, the essential paragraph of the plaint setting out "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 if, for the sake of argument, such glaring illegality were overlooked and an attempt were made to decipher the cause of action from the pleadings, it is evident that the present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation on the basis of the following foundational facts:
-The Plaintiff in the present suit has acknowledged the filing of the 1st Suit by Defendant No. 9, i.e., the Plaintiff's brother, in January, 2020. However, the present relief of declaration is sought in the present suit in August, 2023, i.e., after more than three years. Upon the filing of the present suit, the answering defendants were taken aback by the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-à-vis the title to the Suit Property. In that connection, the answering defendants made inquiries with the erstwhile owners and learnt that in the past, legal proceedings had also been instituted between Name of second litigant Address of second litigant, Name of erstwhile owner Name of first compromising party, etc., and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property, namely Name of second compromising party. Despite diligent efforts over the last two months, the answering defendants have been able to procure only some documents, being the statement of Number of compromised suit, Name of erstwhile owner having compromised Suit No. Name of first plaintiff in old suit with the erstwhile owner, Husband's name of first plaintiff, titled as Name of second plaintiff in old suit W/o Father's name of second plaintiff and Name of first defendant in old suit S/o Husband's name of first defendant vs. Name of second defendant in old suit W/o Name of third defendant in old suit, Name of plaintiff in first suit, Name of plaintiff in first suit and Ors. The answering defendants have been able to procure only 3 pages as of now, and they reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same are procured. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof in this regard, since despite being aware of the prior settlement of the dispute, if any, the Plaintiff has unnecessarily and without any legal basis filed the present suit. Admittedly, the said suit was duly compromised and settled, and in light of that fact the present suit deserves dismissal on account of Order II Rule 2 read with Section 11 of the CPC. Therefore, the cause of action, if any, stood exhausted as far back as 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 been neither valued in the plaint nor has any court fee been paid thereon. Thus, no basis whatsoever has been made out to seek the relief of possession. In any event, the Plaintiff has admittedly not been in possession of the Suit Property for more than 12 years, and hence the relief of possession is not legally sustainable.
On the basis of the settled jurisprudence on these issues and the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble 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 OF THE BAR UNDER ORDER II RULE 2, HAVING REGARD TO THE ERSTWHILE SUIT, I.E., THE 1ST SUIT:
Admittedly, the Plaintiff, by his own admission in the plaint, acknowledges that he was duly aware of the 1st Suit filed by Defendant No. 9, his brother. Admittedly, the 1st Suit was filed in January, 2020. It is a further admitted position on record that Order II Rule 2 mandates that a plaintiff must include his entire claim arising from a specific cause of action in one suit; if a plaintiff, intentionally or unintentionally, omits any part of the claim, he cannot file a separate suit in respect thereof without the permission of the Court. In any event, the present suit is also barred on account of the erstwhile suit pending before the Court. It is an admitted position that the Plaintiff was aware of the 1st Suit from its inception, and therefore no refuge can be taken in the plea that he was unaware of the 1st Suit. Thus, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.
e.WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A PERUSAL OF THE 1ST SUIT FILED BY Name of plaintiff in present suit, THE DEFENDANT NO. 9, SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT SUIT IS NOT ONLY A COLLUSIVE SUIT BUT ALSO A CONTUMACIOUS ATTEMPT TO USURP THE SUIT PROPERTY:
The following instances/particulars emerge from the pleadings of the parties, which lead to the unequivocal conclusion that the present suit has been filed not only as a collusive suit but also mala fide and in order to extort money from the answering defendants. Such instances inter alia include:
•A reference to the memo of parties shows that the address of the Plaintiff in the 1st Suit, i.e., Name of first co-owner, and of Name of second co-owner/the Plaintiff in the present suit, is the same.
•Even at the stage of the 1st Suit, the Plaintiff therein knew that neither he nor his family members were in any manner the owners of the Suit Property. Admittedly, the Plaintiff in the present suit also confirms that the filing of the 1st Suit was within his knowledge. Thus, when a prayer for partition is allegedly sought in the present suit, it is undecipherable as to how, in the 1st Suit, the Plaintiff therein claimed to be the owner of the Suit Property.
•Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of Name of first litigant and Late Address of first litigant is approximately 975 sq. yds. However, the alleged partition is sought only in respect of approximately 353.5 sq. yds. The only untenable explanation offered is that the remainder of the portion is under illegal possession and that the alleged partition is accordingly sought only qua the Suit Property, i.e., 353.5 sq. yds. The aforesaid speaks volumes about the conduct and the real intent/motive of the Plaintiff and his family members.
•Even in the past, legal proceedings had been instituted between Name of second litigant Address of second litigant, Name of erstwhile owner Number of withdrawn suit, etc., and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property, namely Name of person who withdrew suit, being Suit No. Name of first co-owner, and the same was withdrawn by Name of second co-owner, i.e., the father of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, no partition or other relief as allegedly sought in the present suit had been preferred therein. Admittedly, the said suit was duly compromised and settled, and in light of that fact the present suit deserves dismissal on account of Order II Rule 2 read with Section 11 of the CPC.
f.WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL ON ACCOUNT OF THE PECUNIARY LIMIT/JURISDICTION AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE ERRONEOUS VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND NON-PAYMENT OF COURT FEE ON THE RELIEF OF POSSESSION:
Allegedly, the joint ownership of the partitionable land in favour of Name of first litigant and Address of first litigant is approximately 975 sq. yds. However, the alleged partition is sought only in respect of approximately 353.5 sq. yds., and accordingly the suit has been valued at Rs. 1,68,00,000/-. It is settled law that a suit for partition cannot be entertained in part, and thus, for determining the pecuniary limit, the valuation ought to be as per the entire partitionable land, i.e., 975 sq. yds., as alleged by the Plaintiff himself. If that be so, the suit, on the basis of the pecuniary limit, would have to be valued at approximately Rs. 5 crores, which clearly disentitles this Hon'ble Court from proceeding further. Thus, the suit deserves dismissal on this count alone.
g.WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL WITH COSTS ON ACCOUNT OF THE MATERIAL CONCEALMENT OF PREVIOUS SETTLEMENTS IN SUITS WITH THE ERSTWHILE OWNERS:
Upon the filing of the present suit, the answering defendants were taken aback by the untenable claims of the Plaintiff vis-à-vis the title to the Suit Property. In that connection, the answering defendants made inquiries with the erstwhile owners and learnt that in the past, legal proceedings had been instituted between Name of second litigant Address of second litigant, Name of erstwhile owner Name of first compromising party, etc., and the erstwhile owner of the Suit Property, namely Name of second compromising party. Despite diligent efforts over the last two months, the answering defendants have been able to procure only some documents, being the statement of Number of compromised suit, Name of erstwhile owner having compromised Suit No. Name of first plaintiff in old suit with the erstwhile owner, Husband's name of first plaintiff, titled as Name of second plaintiff in old suit W/o Father's name of second plaintiff and Name of first defendant in old suit S/o Husband's name of first defendant vs. Name of second defendant in old suit W/o Name of third defendant in old suit, Counsel's name, Counsel's enrolment or chamber details and Ors. The answering defendants have been able to procure only 3 pages as of now, and they reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same are procured. The Plaintiff may be put to strict proof in this regard, since despite being aware of the prior settlement of the dispute, if any, the Plaintiff has unnecessarily and without any legal basis filed the present suit. Admittedly, the said suit was duly compromised and settled, and in light of that fact the present suit deserves dismissal on account of Order II Rule 2 read with Section 11 of the 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 ATTACHED NOR HAS ANY PROOF OF ITS CONTENTS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THUS, ON THIS GROUND ALONE, THE SUIT DESERVES DISMISSAL AT THE OUTSET.
PARA-WISE REPLY:
1.That the contents of paragraph 1 of the application are a matter of record. It is, however, submitted that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is false and frivolous for the reasons stated in the written statement. 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 paragraph 2 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff has a very good prima facie case in his favour against the defendants and that there is every likelihood of his succeeding in the said case against the defendants. The contents of the written statement may be read as part hereof, not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
3.That the contents of paragraph 3 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendants in the present suit so as to entitle him to the relief of ex-parte/ad-interim injunction. 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 paragraph 4 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the present application is not allowed. 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 paragraph 5 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff had no option but to file the present application against the defendants. 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 and wrong, and are hence strongly opposed. The Plaintiff has no right to seek attachment before judgment against the answering defendants in respect of the Suit Property. The Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs mentioned in the prayer clause of the present application against the answering defendants, for the reasons set out in detail hereinabove.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased 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, in favour of the answering defendants, in the interest of justice.
It is prayed accordingly.
DELHIDEFENDANTS NO. 1 TO 3
(THROUGH SPA HOLDER)
THROUGH
DATEDDate of verification
Counsel's address
Name of the court
Suit number
Counsel's address
IN THE COURT OF Name of the court; LD. ADJ;
EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.
CS/Suit number.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendants' names: DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Deponent's father's name, R/o House No. Deponent's house number, Deponent's street or locality, New Delhi-1100, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I am the Power of Attorney Holder of Name of defendant no.1, Name of defendant no.2 and Name of defendant no.3, being the Defendants No. 1 to 3 in the above case, and am thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case pursuant to the information provided to me, and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the accompanying written statement to the plaint has been drafted by my counsel as per my instructions, and the contents thereof have been duly read over and understood by me, and after fully understanding the contents of the same, I state that the facts stated therein are true and correct.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at New Delhi on this Date of verification day that the contents of the 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 Name of the court; LD. ADJ;
EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.
CS/Suit number
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendants' names: DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Deponent's father's name, R/o House No. Deponent's house number, Deponent's street or locality, New Delhi-1100, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I am the Power of Attorney Holder of Defendants No. 1 to 3 in the above case and am thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case pursuant to the information provided to me, and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the accompanying reply to the application has been drafted by my counsel as per my instructions, and the contents thereof have been duly read over and understood by me, and after fully understanding the contents of the same, I hereby state that the facts stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at New Delhi on this Date of verification day that the contents of the 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 Name of the court; LD. ADJ;
EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.
CS/Suit number
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendants' names: 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 THE LIMITATION ACT, FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE 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 the same is pending before this Hon'ble Court, with the matter listed for Details, 2024.
2.That pursuant to the filing of the present suit, the applicants / answering defendants were aggrieved owing to the untenable claims of the plaintiff vis-à-vis the title of the suit property. In this regard, the answering defendants made enquiries from the erstwhile owners and learnt that even in the past, legal proceedings had been instituted between Details and Details, etc., and the erstwhile owner of the suit property, namely Details. Despite diligent efforts for over the last two months, the answering defendants have been able to procure only some documents, namely the statement of Details, Details having compromised Suit No. Details with the erstwhile owner, titled as Details W/o Details and Details S/o Details Vs Details W/o Details, Details, Details and Ors. The answering defendants have, as of now, been able to procure only 3 pages, and they reserve their right to file the complete set of relevant documents as and when the same are procured. The plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same, as despite being aware of the prior settlement of dispute, if any, the plaintiff has unnecessarily and without any legal basis filed the present suit.
3.It is submitted that the applicants / defendants no. 1 to 3 have not been served with a copy of the plaint and its documents till date. Hence, in the absence of the said documents, it is not possible to prepare the written statement, and the same cannot be filed within the time granted by this Hon'ble Court.
4.It is submitted that despite repeated requests, the copy of the suit along with documents was not supplied to the applicants / defendants; therefore, the applicants / defendants applied for a certified copy of the complete file along with documents, and the certified copy of the same was duly received. In the absence of the copy of the suit and the complete documents, it was not possible to prepare the written statement within the time granted, due to which the applicants could not file the written statement as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court, which was neither intentional nor deliberate. Hence, the written statement is within limitation from the date of receipt of the complete certified copy of the present suit, and the same was filed before this Hon'ble Court with a copy thereof supplied to the plaintiff.
5.That owing to the reasons stated above, the written statement could not be filed by the defendants within time and the resulting delay has been caused. The applicants / defendants are therefore filing the present application for condonation of the delay in filing the written statement, and it is prayed that the present application may be allowed and the written statement of the defendants may be taken on record.
PRAYER :-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present application and condone the 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, in favour of the answering defendants, in the interest of justice.
It is prayed accordingly.
DELHIDEFENDANTS NO. 1 TO 3
(THROUGH SPA HOLDER)
THROUGH
DATEDDate of verification
Counsel's address
IN THE COURT OF Name of the court; LD. ADJ;
EAST DISTRICT; KARKARDOOMA COURTS; DELHI.
CS/Suit number
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendants' names: DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Deponent's father's name, R/o House No. Deponent's house number, Deponent's street or locality, New Delhi-1100, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I am the Power of Attorney Holder of Defendants No. 1 to 3 in the above case and am thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case pursuant to the information provided to me, and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That I have gone through the contents of the accompanying application under Order 8 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of the CPC, which has been drafted by my counsel at my instructions, and the contents of the same are correct and form part of this affidavit as well, the same not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at Place of verification on this Details day of Month of verification, Year of verification, that the contents of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; no part of it is false, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT