IA Reply Civil Court

 

BEFORE THE COURT OF HONLBE XIII CIVIL JUDGE CLASS II RAIPUR (C.G)

Smt. Anita Paul

......Plaintiff

VERSUS

Shri Suresh Kumar Mirghani

.... Defendant

Case no:

Reply of Application under order 39 (1 & 2) of Civil Procedure Code on behalf of Defendant.

That, the instant Application Application seeking injunction has been filed by Pl Plaintiff aintiff to take undue advantage of the mistake done by some counsel in Paper public publication/Public notice, which is being misused by the the Plaintiff to force the void agreement on the Defendant. That, in reality the fair market value of the property in suit is more than 1 crore 50 Lacs, as the property is located in posh locality, named Devendra Nagar and is fully furnished. That, the Defandant denies the content of paper publication dated 18/6/2021, which is also the cause of action in the instant suit. That, the instant suit has been filed by the Plaintiff to obtain the decree by misleading the Hon’ble Court and misuse the same to enforce the same by virtue of Specific relief act. That, the agreement dated 15/6/2021 is Void ab initio, as the same has been executed by undue influence, force and misrepresentation. That, the husband of the Plaintiff was an Advocate of the Defendant and was in fiduciary relation for almost more than 15 1 5 years and he used his undue influence on Defendant and violated violated the pious Attorney-Client Privilege Privilege to usurp the valuable property of Defendant out of greed. That, husband of Plaintiff was in possession of various valuable documents and other instruments of the Defendant and he misused the same to get the instant agreement in the suit to be executed in favour of Plaintiff.

Defendant denies each and every paragraph of the Application under reply except whatever has  been specifically admitted and the paragraph wise reply is as follow:-

1. Reply as to Para 1: Content of paragraph 1 is admitted to the extent of the details of the  property. It is pertinent to mention herein that the alleged agreement is void as the same has been executed by undue influence by virtue of fiduciary relationship and coercion by violation of pious Advocate-client privilege, therein the Plaintiff was unjust fully dominated the will property roperty is more than one crore fifty Lacs.of the defendant and the fair valuation of the p

 

 

2. Reply as to Para 2: It is categorically denied that there was contract of any nature on 21/2/14 otherwise the Plaintiff Plaintiff would not have remained silent for almost seven years  being aware of the fact that contact can only be enforced within three years. In fact the husband of the Plaintiff was a permanent counsel of Non-Plaintiff and wanted to invest money in the firm of Defendant, due du e to this reason only they hav havee failed to provide the details of the account in which they transferred the money, in the plaint. That, the defendant owns a renowned construction Company in town and the husband of Plaintiff had availed various services of the defendant and also procured goods from the defendant for which he reserves the the right to recover money from him and when he found that the defendant is in bad financial shape due to crisis arising out of pandemic, he forced the defendant to execute a agreement and took the signature of Defendant though it was not signed by the Plaintiff and no witnesses were present at time of execution. The alleged agreement is not notarised because the Plaintiff was not present at the time of execution and the signature of defendant were taken by undue influence arising out of fiduciary relationship, therein the husband of Plaintiff was in possession of the documents d ocuments and instruments of defendant and was in position to dominate him. It is also relevant to mention that fair market value of the property in the locality is more than 1.5 crore Rs therefore it is highly improbable that anyone would agree to sell the property of crores for  seventy one Lacs. 3. Reply as to Para 3: That, it is specifically denied that the consideration alleged in the Application was given for the property under suit as the same was deposited in the account of firm owned by the Defendant and the agreement dated 15/6/2021 was after thought and executed by undue influence and the fair value of property under suit is more than 1crore fifty lacs. 4. Reply as to Para 4: Contents of this para are admitted to the extent ex tent of fiduciary relationship between the husband of Plaintiff and Non Plaintiff. It is important to mention here that the Defendant used to trust the husband of Plaintiff in all his matters and  preferred to keep the instruments with him. 5. Reply as to Para 5 & 6: Content of this paragraph are in furtherance of concocted story of Plaintiff, if the concocted story of Plaintiff is deemed to be true on its face value then she would have filed complaint in the year 2014 to the authorities or filed a Civil suit as her husband is a leading Advocate of Raipur, when she came to learn that the property was mortgaged. In the year 2014 and 2015 there was no oral or written contract between the parties against the property in suit. 6. Reply as to Para 7: Contents of this para are specifically denied being concocted except the fact that the property was released by the Bank. Defendant being the absolute owner of property had the right to mortgage the property and get it released, the content of this  paragraph are concocted to complete the fabricated story of Plaintiff on being misguided to obtain the property worth crores for small amount of money. 7. Reply as to Para 8: Contents of this paragraph are admitted to the factual correctness of the agreement but it is important to mention herein that the agreement was executed via undue influence to obtain the property worth crores of rupees for seventy one lacs by fabricating a concocted story.

8. Reply as to Para 9: It is specifically denied that there was an oral agreement in the year 2014 and the agreement dated 15/6/2021 was imposed on the Defendant by undue influence and misrepresentation.

 

9. Reply as to Para 10: Content of this para is admitted but the Defendant has come to learn about this factual/typographical mistake from the Application filed by the Plaintiff in the instant petition. That, on due enquiry, Defendant has come to learn that the agreement, on which the Plaintiff’s husband took signature of Defendant was for House no. D 15/4 and the property and client on whose behalf shri Manoj Agrawal advocate had  published the notice was for D 14. It is respectfully submitted submitted that typographical error is the cause of action in the instant suit but the Plaintiff want to take advantage of the typographical error to obtain the injunctive relief and utilise the same for specific  performance though she is fully known that the agreement date 15/6/2021 was void. That, the defendant has already directed his counsel to send a notice to Adv Shri Manoj Agrawal to rectify the same in the intrest of justice. 10. Reply as to Para 11: That, Defendant has come to learn about these facts from the plaint of Plaintiff and denies any conversation held with the Plaintiff, in fact her husband is liable to pay lacs of Rupees for the services and goods procured from the defendant. 11. Reply as to Para 12: That, the agreement is void as the same was executed by undue influence and coercion and the Defendant is ready to return the amount of 2800000 received from the Plaintiff in his firm for investment along with interest but he is also entitled to receive more twenty five lacs rupees for services availed by the husband of the Applicant.

12. Reply as to Para 13 and unnumbered Paragraph: - That, Defendant is a victim of the trap created by the Plaintiff’s husband using his enriched position and legal knowledge and therefore she is not entitled for any kind of relief from this Hon’ble Court. That, the instant Application has been filed by the Plaintiff to take advantage of the wrong done by her husband and does not deserve any injunctive relief on the following grounds:1) There is no Prima facie case:- That, the cause of action in the instant application is one typographical error thereby House no D15 was mentioned in place of D14 in paper publication of another property and the same shall be rectified as the Defendant has already notified the Advocate, who had  published the public notice and also the instant agreement is void since it was executed without the free will of non-Plaintiff and based on the facts mentioned in the preceding paragraphs no Prima facie case is made in favour of the Plaintiff. 2) There There is no irrepa irreparab rable le loss tto o the Plaint Plaintiff: iff: - That, the suit of Plaintiff is  based on fabricated concocted story and she can be adequately compensated in terms of money as the Defendant is ready to refund the money invested by her husband in his firm for investment purposes. 3) There is no no Balance Balance of convenie convenience nce in favour of the the Plaintiff Plaintiff::- There is no  balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff as her entire story is fabricated and concocted, which is evident from the following facts:

1. Husband Husband of Plainti Plaintiff ff is a leading leading Advocate Advocate despite despite that she and her husband gave consideration to the Defendant without any agreement in the year 2014.

2. No Suit/Com Suit/Complaint plaint was filed filed between between the years 2014-2017, 2014-2017, although Plaintiff was aware about the limitation period of enforcing agreement.

 

3. Considerat Consideration ion was deposi deposited ted in the the partnersh partnership ip firm firm of defendant defendant.. 4. When Plainti Plaintiff ff came came to learn learn about about the the mortgage mortgage of of the suit  property in the year 2015 she did not filed any complaint against the Defendant. 5. Agreement Agreement is not not notarized notarized as as witnesses witnesses and Plainti Plaintiff ff were were not  present at the time of execution and the husband of Plaintiff took the signature of Defendant by using his h is dominant position in fiduciary relationship being an Advocate. 6. That, the the fair fair value of of the property property in suit suit is more more than than one crore crore fifty lacs and the Applicant and her h er husband is trying to obtain the same for seventy one lacs using vexatious litigation.

The real story is that the husband of Plaintiff being an Advocate of the Defendant was always interested in the various v arious properties and  business of Applicant against the professional ethic and forcibly forcibly deposited the money in the account of firm owned by the Defendant to to earn intrest and always induced the Defendant to deliver his valuable properties for throw away prices. Husband of the Plaintiff, got the first floor of his house constructed by the Defendant, cost of which was more than 16Lac and also procured Car of Rupees 8-9Lacs from the Defendant without paying any consideration and also took lacs of Rupees Ru pees as interest from the defendant. That, during the pandemic period financial health of the  Non-Plaintiff became weak and he delivered his instruments to the husband of Plaintiff for emergency purposes, who in turned used them to get the instant agreement executed in his favour and obtain the property of almost two crore Rupees for seventy one lacs. 13. That, the defendant craves the liberty liberty of this Hon’ble Court to submit the detailed detailed reply and produce documents.

 

Prayer

That, based on the aforementioned facts, Defendant humbly prays to this hon’ble court co urt to dismiss the application file by the Plaintiff under order 39 rule 1 and 2 in the intrest of  justice.

Place: Raipur Date: 9/8/2021

DEFANDANT Advocate for Defendant