IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS.
AACHAL JSCC-
CUM-ADDL. SCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE ,NORTH
DELHI
C.S/746/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAVINDER BHARDAWAJ … PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS’ … DEFENDANTS
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1
TO THE SUIT FOR FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
The defendant most respectfully showeth:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
1. That the suit is not maintainable in the present form because
the same has not been filed by the proper plaintiff.
2. That the Plaintiff has no locus Standi as the Plaintiff is not the
owner of the property in dispute.
3. That the Plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit due to his own
act and conduct.
4. That the plaintiff is not the original owner nor he is authorized
by the owner to file the present suit nor he is attorney of the
original owner so he has no capacity to maintain the present
suit., no proof of being the original owner has been attached
with the plaint .
5. That the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties.
It is submitted to this Hon’ble Court that plaintiff who claims
the original owner should file his title deeds pertaining to the
[Link]. 1387B & 1388, pana paposiya ,narela,delhi -110040 .
REPLY ON MERITS
1. Para no. 1 of the plaint is wrong and denied ,it was admitted to
the extent that plaintiff is the cousin brother of the defendant
no. 1 .
2. Para no. 2 of the plaint is wrong and denied the plaintiff is not
the original owner nor he is authorized by the owner to file the
present suit .
3. Para no. 3 of the plaint is a matter of record and needs no reply.
4. Para no. 4 of the plaint is a matter of record and needs no reply.
5. Para no. 5 of the plaint is a matter of record and needs no reply.
6. Para no. 6 of the plaint is wrong and denied .
7. Para no. 7 of the plaint is wrong and denied .Moreover truth is
far away from plaintiff aversions ,defendant no. 1 was
renovating his house 1387 A ,Pana Pasoiya,Narela as it was
very old house and plaintiff was harassing defendant no. 1
mentally and even threatened defendant no. 1 to implicate him
in false police case. It was further submitted that defendant
no.1 was extra cautious while renovating his house i.e 1387A
and no loss has been caused to plaintiff while renovating
defendant no. 1 house .
8. Para no. 8 of the plaint is wrong and denied. That defendant
no.1 has not caused any nuisance to plaintiff although plaintiff
has created many hurdles for defendant while renovating
1387a. It was further submitted that defendant no.1 was not
constructing first floor he was only renovating it.
9. Para no. 9 of the plaint is a matter of record and needs no reply.
[Link] no. 10 of the plaint is a matter of record and needs no
reply.
[Link] no. 11 of the plaint is a matter of record and needs no
reply.
[Link] no. 12 of the plaint is a matter of record and needs no
reply.
[Link] no. 13 of the plaint is wrong and denied in toto .
[Link] no. 14 of the plaint is absolutely wrong and denied in-toto.
The story propounded by the plaintiff under this paragraph
bears no tinge of truth.
15. Para no. 15 of the plaint is wrong and denied. The plaintiff has
no cause of action against the defendants. The case of action
mentioned under this paragraph is false, concocted, untenable
and made-up. Infact there is no real cause of action.
16. Para no. 16 of plaint is wrong and denied .
17. Para no. 17 of the plaint being legal needs no reply however the
hon’ble court does not enjoy any jurisdiction to entertain false
cases
18. Para no. 18 of the plaint being legal needs no reply.
Prayer clause of the plaint is wrong and denied.
PRAYER
It is therefore respectfully and humbly prayed that the suit of
the plaintiff be dismissed with heavy cost.
Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble court deem fit
and proper may also be passed in favour of defendants and against the
plaintiff in the interest of justice and equity.
SONIPAT DEFENDANT
DATED: THROUGH
COUNSEL
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this 8thday of september,2021 that the contents of
preliminary objection para no. 1 to 5 of preliminary objections and
para no. 1-18 based on merits are of the written statement are correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief .
DEFENDANT
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS. AACHAL JSCC-CUM-
ADDL. SCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE ,NORTH DELHI
C.S/746/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAVINDER BHARDAWAJ … PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS’ … DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I Rajesh Kumar S/o aged about years, R/o khasara no 63,village
safiyabad district sonipat, Haryana do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1. That I am one of the defendants in the above mentioned suit and am well
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and I am
competent to swear and depose the present affidavit.
2. That the accompanying written statement has been drafted by my counsel
under my instructions and the same has been read over and explained to
me in my vernacular and the contents of the same are correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
DEPONE
NT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this 8 thday of September,2021 that the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS. AACHAL JSCC-
CUM-ADDL. SCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE ,NORTH
DELHI
C.S/746/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAVINDER BHARDAWAJ … PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS’ … DEFENDANTS
REPLY TO APPLIATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2
R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CPC ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANTS.
Most Respectfully showeth:-
1. That para no. 1 of the application is correct up-to the
extent that the plaintiff has filed suit as alleged but the
same is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed
with heavy cost.
2. That para no. 2 of the application is wrong and denied.
the plaintiff has no prima facie case in his favour. Rather
the same is in favour o the defendant no. 1. There are no
chances of the success of the case and the plaintiff has
falsely developed presumptive notion of the case being
success.
3. That para no. 3 of the application is wrong and denied.
There is no balance of convenience in favour of the
plaintiff rather it leans in favour of the defendants.
4. That para no. 4 of the application is wrong and denied.
No loss and injury will ensue in favour of the plaintiff if
the stay is not granted rather there would be great loss
and injury to the defendants if the ad-interim injunction
is granted to the plaintiff .
PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that prayer of the plaintiff is wrong
and denied.
It is therefore prayed that the present application filed
under O. 39; RR 1 & 2 r/w section 151 of the CPC filed
by the plaintiff be dismissed with heavy cost.
Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble court
deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of
defendants and against the plaintiff in the interest of
justice and equity.
DELHI DEFENDANT
DATED: THROUGH
COUNSEL
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS. AACHAL JSCC-CUM-
ADDL. SCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE ,NORTH DELHI
C.S/746/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAVINDER BHARDAWAJ … PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS’ … DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I Rajesh Kumar S/o aged about years, R/o khasara no 63,village
safiyabad district sonipat, Haryana do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1. That I am one of the defendants in the above mentioned suit and
am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case
and I am competent to swear and depose the present affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Reply has been drafted by my counsel
under my instructions and the same has been read over and
explained to me in my vernacular and the contents of the same are
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONE
NT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at sonipat on this that the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS. AACHAL JSCC-
CUM-ADDL. SCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE ,NORTH
DELHI
C.S/746/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAVINDER BHARDAWAJ … PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS’ … DEFENDANTS
INDEX
SNO PARTICULARS COURT PAGE NO
FEE
1. WRITTEN STATEMENT ON
BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
NO. 1 TO THE SUIT FOR
FOR PERMANENT AND
MANDATORY
INJUNCTION ALONG WITH
AFFIDAVIT
2. REPLY TO APPLIATION
UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1
AND 2 R/W SECTION 151
OF THE CPC ON BEHALF
OF THE DEFENDANTS.
VAKALTNAMA
DELHI DEFENDANT
DATED: THROUGH
COUNSEL