0% found this document useful (0 votes)
63 views7 pages

Written Statement for Contract Suit

cpc written statement draft

Uploaded by

SREEYA SENGUPTA
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
63 views7 pages

Written Statement for Contract Suit

cpc written statement draft

Uploaded by

SREEYA SENGUPTA
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

CPC PW ASSIGNMENT:

DRAFT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT

TOPIC: SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF


CONTRACT

[Link](Hons.)

SREEYA SENGUPTA
22BAL200
DIVISION A
IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE
TIS HAZARI COURT, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 38475 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Rajat Ranavat
S/o Aditya Ranavat
Resides in House No. 27,
Block C, DLF Colony,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 928600
…PLAINTIFF
Versus
Popat Lal Chadda
S/o Lt. Digant Lal Chadda
Resides in B-14,
Green Park Extension, South Delhi,
New Delhi – 110016
…DEFENDANT

WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908

The Defendant, most respectfully submits as follows:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS-

1. That the present suit as filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form

and is liable to be dismissed as the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient cause of

action.
2. That at the outset, the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by limitation period since the

claims brought forth by the Plaintiff relate to events that occurred more than three

years prior to the filing of the plaint.

3. That this Hon‟ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit because the

subject matter of the dispute and the relief sought do not pertain to the jurisdiction of

this Court.

4. That the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and

jurisdiction and is therefore liable to be rejected outrightly.

5. That the suit is barred by the decree dated 09/12/2023 passed in suit no. 8347 titled

Rajat Ranavat v. Popat Lal Chadda before the court of Senior Sub-Judge, Rohini, New

Delhi, The present suit is therefore barred by the principle of res-judicata and

therefore liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone.

6. That the suit has not been properly verified in accordance with law.

ON MERITS :

Without prejudice to the preliminary objections stated above, the reply on merits, which is

without prejudice to one another, is as under:-

7. That para 1 of the plaint is correct and is admitted.

8. That the contents of para 2 of the plaint are denied for want of knowledge. The

Plaintiff is put to the strict proof of each and every allegation made in the para under

reply.

9. The contents of para 3 are admitted.

10. That with respect to para 4, although the Defendant acknowledges receiving a partial

payment of two lakhs fifty thousand rupees, this amount was received as a token of
goodwill during preliminary negotiations and not as an advance against any

enforceable agreement.

11. That the averments made in paras 5 to 11, made by Plaintiff are false, vexatious,

baseless, invented, and imaginary stories and completely lack bonafide and made with

ulterior motives besides being devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. The

parties engaged in extensive discussions regarding the potential sale of the painting,

including negotiations over the price, terms of delivery, and other conditions of the

sale. However, the defendant had several concerns over the sale, such as the

possibility that the market value may fluctuate and the wish to reevaluate the

conditions of the deal. As a result, no formal contract was executed, and the

Defendant did not provide written confirmation of the sale or acceptance of the

Plaintiff’s offer.

12. The parties never agreed to any specific date of delivery or had any obligation to

deliver the painting by 06.01.2020, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

13. That the Defendant did not communicate any assurance to the Plaintiff for completing

the sale or transfer of the painting upon receipt of further payment, as there was no

concluded contract.

14. That with respect to para 10, the Defendant contends the painting’s possession and

value may vary, and thus monetary compensation or refund is a fair and adequate

remedy for any grievance claimed by the Plaintiff.

15. That para 14 is not admitted. This Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this

suit because the subject matter of this suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court.

16. The para 17 is not admitted. The suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of

court fee and jurisdiction.


COUNTER-CLAIMS:

17. That the Defendant claims damages arising from the Plaintiff's actions, including but

not limited to reputational harm and loss of potential sales opportunities caused by the

Plaintiff's baseless assertions of a concluded contract.

18. That the Defendant further seeks costs associated with this suit, including legal fees

and other expenses incurred in defending against the Plaintiff’s baseless claims.

PRAYER

19. It is, therefore, most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a. Dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.

b. Pass any other just and equitable order as deemed fit in the interest of justice.

DEFENDANT

Through

Shankar Shrivastava

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATED: 13/09/2024 ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF

VERIFICATION:

Verification at Delhi on 13/09/2024 that the contents of paras 1 to 6 of the preliminary


objection and para 7 to 16 of the reply on merits and para 17 and 18 of counter claims are true
to my personal knowledge on the basis of legal advice received and believed to be true. Last
para is prayer to the Hon‟ble Court.
DEFENDANT

Place: New Delhi

Dated: 13/09/2024
IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE
TIS HAZARI COURT, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 38475 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Rajat Ranavat
…PLAINTIFF
Versus
Popat Lal Chadda
…DEFENDANT

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Popat Lal Chadda S/o Lt. Digant Lal Chadda, aged about 38 years, , residing at B-14,
Green Park Extension, South Delhi, New Delhi – 110016, do hereby state on solemn
affirmation as under:
1. I am the Defendant in this case, I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of
the case, hence I swear this affidavit.
2. I state that the contents of the paragraph No. 1 to 19 are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, belief and information.
I do swear on oath that what is stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
and information.
DEPONENT
Identified by me
Advocate
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 13/09/2024

Common questions

Powered by AI

A court might reject a suit based on improper valuation for court fees if the suit is not correctly valued in accordance with legal requirements for jurisdiction and court fees. The defendant asserted that the suit was not properly valued, raising this as a ground for dismissal due to inadequate court fees and jurisdictional inconsistencies .

The defendant justified the denial of an enforceable agreement by stating that the partial payment received was merely a token of goodwill during preliminary negotiations and not a sign of any concluded or enforceable contract. Negotiations over the painting’s sale were extensive, but no formal contract or written confirmation was concluded .

A court might dismiss a suit based on jurisdictional issues if the subject matter or the value of the dispute falls outside the jurisdictional limits of that court. In the defendant's statement, it was raised that the court lacks jurisdiction because the dispute's subject matter and the relief sought do not pertain to the court's jurisdiction, and the suit exceeds the court's pecuniary jurisdiction .

A suit for specific performance of a contract is typically considered meritorious when there exists a valid, enforceable contract, and monetary compensation is not an adequate remedy for the breach. The defendant contended there was no enforceable contract, as no formal contract was executed and no specific dates or obligations were agreed upon, thus arguing against the suit's merit based on these deficiencies .

From the defendant's perspective, procedural defects that could undermine the plaintiff’s suit include improper verification of the suit, lack of a proper cause of action, and filing outside the jurisdictional and pecuniary limits. Additionally, the suit being time-barred and barred by res judicata were presented as procedural defects justifying dismissal .

The legal principle that justifies the dismissal of a case when the same issue has already been judged in a previous case is the doctrine of res judicata. This principle bars a subsequent suit if a competent court has already adjudicated the same matter, providing finality and preventing multiple suits for the same dispute .

The limitation period impacts the admissibility of a civil suit because if the claims relate to events beyond the statutory period allowed to bring a claim, the suit can be considered time-barred and dismissed. The defendant claimed the suit was filed beyond the three-year limitation period for the alleged contract-related events .

For a legal claim to be 'properly verified,' the verifying affidavit must confirm that the contents of the pleadings are true to the knowledge, information, and belief of the person verifying. Improper verification can undermine the procedural integrity of the suit, leading to dismissals or delays. The defendant argued that the suit was not properly verified according to law, possibly constituting grounds for its rejection .

The defendant argued that monetary compensation is a fair remedy because the possession and value of the painting, which is the subject of the dispute, may vary. Therefore, compensation or a refund could adequately address the plaintiff's grievance without necessitating specific performance .

The potential consequences of the plaintiff's claims on the defendant's business and reputation include reputational harm and loss of potential sales opportunities. The defendant asserted that the claims were baseless and the assertions of a concluded contract led to these damages, forming part of the counter-claims against the plaintiff .

You might also like