In The Court of Shri Devender Kumar Jangala, Adj, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi

 

IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA, ADJ, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI

SUIT NO. CS/269/2014 IN THE MATTER OF:-

SH. MOHINDER SINGH

…….. PLAINTIFF VERSUS

SH. CHANNI RAM

…… DEFENDANT

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH : PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 1. That the suit filed by the plaintiff is an abuse of the due process of law

and wastage of the precious time of the Hon’ble court, as the plaint does do es no nott di disc sclo lose se an any y ca caus use e of ac acti tion on ag agai ains nstt th the e an answ swer erin ing g defendant, the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the civil procedure code. 2. That the suit has been filed with the sole purpose to harass and

humiliate the answering defendant, who is a respectable and innocent law abiding citizen of India.

3. That the suit file by the plaintiff is false and frivolous and the plaintiff 

has not approached this Hon’ble court with clean hands. That suit of  the plaintiff is based on the false and fabricated allegations made agai ag ains nstt the the de defe fend ndan antt with with ul ulte teri rior or mo moti tive ves s to ex exto tort rt mo mone ney y by misre mi srepre presen sentat tation ion an and d ma mani nipu pulat latio ion n un unde derr the ga garb rb of lilitig tigati ation on.. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed has not signed or 

executed any agreement/Samjhauta agreement/Samjhauta Patra is not on any stamp paper  and it does not have any Revenue Stamp and thus it is a forged and

 

fabric fab ricate ated d do docum cument ent whi which ch stan stand d the scru scruti tiny ny of law.

Tha Thatt aft after  er 

consulta cons ultation tion with his counsel the defe defendan ndantt has already lodged a Police report with P.S. Moti Nagar in this regard. Moreover there was no occasion or opportunity to draw this alleged and false samjhauta patra in terms of the averments as set up by the plaintiff in his false suit, which prove the falsity of the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff be put to strict proof  [

5. That the suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has conceal and

suppre sup press ss the ma mater terial ial in infor forma matio tion n on kno knowin wingl gly y an and d in inten tentio tiona nalllly y having malafide intentions to get relief of his choice from this Hon’ble court. cour t. This act of the plain plaintiff tiff dise disentit ntitles les his from get getting ting any reli relief  ef  from this Hon’ble Court, as the plaintiff is himself guilty of omissions and commissions and of his own latches.

6. That the plaint is liable to be dismissed as it is based on mere

conjectures without any substance. The defendant came into content with the plaintiff through one Shri Uday Chandra Thakur who was working in an STD Booth. With the passage of time both plaintiff and defendant, in 2007, decided to pool their sources and start a small time business of sale & purchase and renting of the properties and defendant gave two, only signed, cheques with clear understanding that in case of need one of the cheques, in each property deal, may be util utiliz ized ed,, as se secu curi rity ty,, un unde derr in info form rmat atio ion n to th the e de defe fend ndan ant. t. Sometimes in November/ December. 2007 the plaintiff expressed his desire to sell his First Floor (without roof rights) of Kothis No. 6/7 Punj Pu njab abii Ba Bagh gh Ex Exten tensio sion, n, New De Delh lhii me measu asurin ring g 200 Sq Yd Yds. s. The defendant made efforts and brokered a deal in January,2008 for the sale of the said floor and an agreement to sell dated 18.01.2008 was entered into between the plaintiff and one shri Ram Chander Rai and th the e pl plai aint ntif ifff sh shri ri Moh ohin inde derr Si Sing ngh h re rece ceiv ived ed an ad adva vanc nce e of Rs Rs.. 12,35,000.00,

in

cash

from

the

purchaser

against

a

total

consideration of Rs. 68,00,000.00 and the balance was to be paid on or be befo fore re 18 18.0 .04. 4.20 2008 08.. in ca case se se sell ller er fa fail iled ed to ex exec ecut ute e th the e sa sale le documents, the purchaser was entitled to receive double the amount of advance, in terms of para 1 of the terms of Agreement to sell. After  lot of dilly-delaying the deal of this sale could not mature and shri

 

Ram Chandra Rai started demanding back double of the advance given to the plainti plaintiff ff and thus the plaintiff sought the help/ interventio intervention n of the defendant who was one of the witnesses to the Agreement to Sell dated 18.01.2008.

7. In the meantime Defendant took a friendly loan Rs. 4,50,000.00 (Rs.

Four lac and fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff in January, 2009  ______urgent  ______u rgent need. On the insistence of the plainti plaintiff, ff, the defendan defendant, t, with with hi his s si sino nore re effo effort rts s co conv nvin ince ced d Sh Shri ri Ra Ram m Ch Chan ande derr Ra Raii th the e purch pu rchase aser, r, to ag agre ree e to rec recei eive ve the pri princi ncipl ple e ad advan vance ce am amou ount nt of  Rs.12 Rs. 12,3 ,35,0 5,000/ 00/-- an and d the pla plaint intiff iff agre agreed ed to ref refund und

the amo amount unt in

installment to the said purchaser. However, in April 2010 the plaintiff  asked the defendant to pay the entire amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- loan taken by the defendant from the plaintiff to Sri Ram Chander Rai on his behalf, against the advance taken by the plaintiff for the sale of his Flat/floor against the receipt which the defendant paid as desired by the plaintiff. Thus in deference to the instructions of the plaintiff the defendant has paid the entire loan amount of Rs 4,50,000/-(Rs. Four  lac and fifty thousand only) on behalf of the plaintiff to Shri Ram, Chander Rai and a copy of the receipt was duly sent to the plaintiff. The defendant has thus liquidated the entire loan of the plaintiff by way wa y of sai said d pa paym ymen ent. t. Th There ereaf after ter no nothi thing ng re rema main ined ed due due fro from m th the e defendant to the plaintiff against the said loan of Rs. 4,50,000/-

8. That the case is beyond limitation.

REPLY ON MERITS 1. That the contents of para 1 of the plaint are wrong and are denied. 2.  That the contents of para 2 of the plaint are wrong and are denied

as set-up. Loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- was taken in January,2009 only and rest of the para is denied being based on sunrises without any substance.

3. That para 3 is wrong and denied being based on mere conjectures

and without substances. It is denied that the defendant took sum

 

of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the plaintiff and as an acknowledgement and ass ssu uran rance to pay back ck// re reffund the enti tirre amount of  Rs.4,50, Rs.4 ,50,000/ 000/-- the defe defendan ndantt hand handed ed over two cheq cheques ues bea bearing ring No.659294 dated 09-04-2009 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- both drawn of Bank of Maharashtra, East Patel Nagar Delhi in favour of  the plaintiff as alleged or at all. It is submitted that the defendant had given two said cheques to the plaintiff in 2007 when both plaintiff and the defendant decided to start a small time business of Sale/ Purchase and renting of properties on commission basis, as the the co cont ntri ribu buti tion on// se secu curi rity ty.. Th Thes ese e ch cheq eque ues s bo bore re on only ly th the e signatures of the defendant and no other details like. Date, payees name and amount both in words and _____were filled in. the pl plai ainti ntiff ff ha has s for forge ged d these these che chequ ques es for hi his s ul ulter terio iorr mo motiv tives es by unauthorisedly filling in detail to give semblance of loan refund which has already been paid on his behalf to the purchaser of his Floor, as per his instructions. 4. That para 4 of the plaint is false, wrong and hence denied being

the brain child of the plaintiff and without any substance. It is denied that as assured by the defendant the loan amount was not paid back to the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff approached the defe de fend ndant ant on sev severa erall occ occasi asions ons and de dema mande nded d hi his s mo mone ney y as alleged or at all. It is further denied that after great personation and efforts the defendant asked the plaintiff to encase the first chequ che que e of Rs. Rs.2,5 2,50,0 0,000 00//- wh which ich the pl plain ainti tiff ff pre presen sented ted wi with th his banker Induslnd Bank on 21-04-2009, however the said cheque beari be aring ng No. No.65 65929 9294 4 da date ted d 09 09-04 -04-20 -2009 09 re retur turne ned d un unpa paid id to the plaintiff as the defendant was not having amount with the banker  as alleged or at all. This is a false story knitted by the plaintiff that tis why he has failed to file the cheque returning memo from both the baker to prove his banafide. The plaintiff is making vague assertions without any merit. To prove his falsity it is submitted that the plaintiff should have filed a complaint under section 138 of  the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5.  That the contents of para 5 of the plaint are false, wrong and are

vehe ve heme ment ntly ly de deni nied ed.. it is de deni nied ed th that at th ther erea eaft fter er th the e pl plai aint ntif iff  f 

 

cont co ntac acte ted d the the de defe fend ndan antt an and d as aske ked d th the e re reas ason on fo forr th the e sa said id dishonoring dishono ring the cheque but the defendant assured the plainti plaintiff ff that he would certainly make the payment of the entire loan amount and made the payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff and sought some more time for making payment of the balance loan amount as alleged or at all. It is submitted that there was no opportunity for  the the de defe fend ndan antt to pa pay y an any y am amou ount nt of Rs Rs.. 50 50,0 ,000 00//- (Rs. (Rs. Fi Fift fty y Thousand Only). Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the allegation which is without any substance.

6. That para 6 of the plaint is false, wrong and is denied being based

on fanciful thinking of the plaintiff. That however, despite several requests, letters and visits on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant did not clear his dues and did not make the entire payment of the loan amount as alleged or at all. The plaintiff has not filed any letter or details of visits of the persons on his behalf which proves the falsehood of his averments in the para.   7. That para 7 of the plaint is false wring and denied being based on

mere ere co conj njec ectu ture res s with withou outt an any y su subs bsta tanc nce. e. It is de deni nied ed th that at thereafter the plaintiff contacted various persons/ common friends and brought the above said illegal act of the defendant to their  notice, and after their interferes and indulgence, the defendant agreed to refund his loan amount and also showed his bonafide to make the payment of interest @ 24% P.A. on the loan amount for  the delays period as alleged or at all. It is a look & bull story with withou outt an any y su subs bsta tanc nce. e. Th Ther ere e ar are e no de deta tail ils s of th the e co comm mmon on friends. The defendant never showed his banafide to pay interest @ 24% or at any rate.

8. That para 8 of the plaint is false, wrong and vehemently denied. it

is denied that in this regard an agreement (Samjhauta Patra) was signed by the defendant in the present of the plaintiff and other  witness on 28-06-2010 thereby the defendant agreed to make the payment of the entire loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- alongwith inter interest est @ 24% P.A P.A.. the thereb reby y spe specif cifica ically lly ag agree reed d to ma make ke the payment of Rs.5,58,000/- as on 28-06-2010 as alleged or at all. It

 

is further denied that the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- was adjusted and a sum of Rs. 5,08,000/- was required to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as alleged or at all. The plaintiff be put to strict proof of the allegations. It is submitted that the plaintiff is very ver y run runni ning ng an and d so hom homin ing g pe perso rson. n. Si Since nce the de defe fenda ndant nt ha had d already paid the entire loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- to shri Ram chander Rai on behalf of the plaintiff against the advance which the the pl plai aint ntif ifff ha had d take taken n from from th the e sa said id Sh Shri ri Ra Ram m Ch Chan ande derr Ra Raii towards the sale price of the First Floor of the plaintiff in kothi No. 6/7 6/7 Pu Punj njab abii Ba Bagh gh Ext Extens ension ion,, Ne New w De Delh lhii the there re wa was s ne neith ither er an any y need nor any occasion to enter into such an Agreement as alleged by the the pl plai aint ntif iff. f. Fu Furt rthe herr it is th the e ca case se of th the e pl plai aint ntif ifff th that at th the e defendant was to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by cheque as on 20-12 -12-20 -2010, the then how sh sho ould defend nda ant to ente terr in intto an agreement agreem ent on 28-06-2010. This is a self contradictory stand of the plaintiff. Moreover there is no cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- filed. The cheque no.659296 mentions Rs1,00,000/- in memorials and ‘Two Lacs Only’ in worlds which does not give credence to the story knitted by the plaintiff.   9. That the para 9 of the plaint is false, wrong and vehemently denied

as the same is the brain child of the cunning mind of the plaintiff  without any substance. It is denied that on the date of executing the afor aforesai esaid d agre agreeme ement nt dat dated ed 28-0 28-06-20 6-2010, 10, the def defenda endant nt also made the payment of Rs. 8000/- to the plaintiff and assured the plaintiff a to make the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- on 28-07-2010 and the balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 28-8-2010 as alleged or at all. It is further denied that he also made clear in the said agreement agreem ent that the aforesaid liabil liability ity of the defendant was nothing to do tha thatt an any y othe otherr tra transa nsacti ction on i.e i.e.. re rega gardi rding ng th the e de deal al of th the e property no.6/7, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi and that the aforesaid amount was his personal liability as alleged or at all. Tge plaintiff be put to strict proof of the allegations. It is wrong that any agreement agreem ent was ever entered into on 28-06-2010. The falsity of the story as set up by the plaintiff is proved that the plaintiff has not filed any original alleged agreement/samjhauta Agreement as the

 

pl plai aint ntif ifff kn know ows s it ve very ry we well ll th that at no su such ch ag agre reem emen entt wa was s ev ever  er  executed. Copy of the document has no value in the eyes of law. 10. That the para 10 of the plaint is false, wrong and vehemently

denied as the same is based on mere conjectures without any hase. It is denied that the original of the agreement dated 28-062010 20 10 take taken n by the the de defe fend ndan antt as pe perr ac ackn know owle ledg dgem emen entt of  Rs.8000/- for which no separate receipt was executed, however, he signed the photocopy of the same in original, as alleged or at all. It is submitted that no such agreement was ever executed and as such there was no question of the defendant taken away the agreement. 11. That the para 11 of the plaint is false, wrong and denied. it is

denied that the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested him to release the amount but he did not give the satisfactory reply to the pla plain intif tifff as alleg alleged ed.. It is re respe spectf ctfull ully y su subm bmitt itted ed that that th the e defendant was no to make any payment to the plaintiff on any, dated subsequent subsequent to when he paid the amount to the purchaser of  the property of the plaintiff and as such no payment was to be paid by the defendant on 28-7-2010 or 28-8-2010 as alleged. 12. That the para 12 of the plaint is false, wrong is denied. it is denied

that due to the failure of the commitment on part of the defendant and not responding the request of the plaintiff for refunding the loan amount, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 22-9-2010 thereby dem thereby demand anded ed the enti entire re bala balance nce amo amount unt of Rs.5 Rs.5,00, ,00,000/ 000/-from the defendant as alleged at all. It is respectfully submitted that no notice was ever served upon the defendant. The plaintiff  has failed to mention the date of the service of the alleged notice norr pl no plai ainti ntiff ff

ha has s fil filed ed any ackno acknowle wledge dgeme ment nt form of the pos postt

office.

13. That the para 13 of the plaint is false, wrong is denied. it is denied

that thereafter the plaintiff continued with the aforesaid demand and approached the defendant on various occasions and in last December, 2010 the defendant asked the plaintiff to deposit and en cash the security cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- which was given vide

 

cheque cheq ue bea bearing ring no. no.6592 659296 96 date dated d 10-1 10-12-20 2-2010 10 and assu assured red the plaintiff that the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- would be paid within short span of time as alleged or at all. It is submitted that the plea so setup in the para is in contrast to plea taken in earlier  paragraphs by the plaintiff. The plaintiff may kindly be put to strict proof of the allegations. 14. That the para 14 of the plaint is false, wrong is denied. it is denied

that however, the aforesaid cheque bearing no.659296 dishonored on 27-12-2010 and therefore, the plaintiff again approached the defendant and asked the reason for the same al alleged or at all. It is further denied that on this the defendant again requested the plaintiff to present the aforesaid cheque again after mid-January, 2011 and assured that the same would be encashed this time as alleged or at all. It is submitted that there was no opportunity or  need to is need issu sue e the the ch cheq eque ue with with da date te as 20 20-1 -122-20 2010 10 as th the e defe de fend ndant ant ha has s gi given ven che chequ que e no no.6 .659 59296 296 as bla blank nk an and d an anoth other  er  cheque no.659294 no.659294 as blank to the plainti plaintiff ff for starting a small time business of property dealer/ renting. The plaintiff has mis-used both the cheque to get wrongfully gain to himself and wrongfull lose to the defendant. The plaintiff has not filed any cheque any cheque returning memo the bank which proved his falsity. 15. That the para 15 of the plaint is false, wrong is denied. It is denied

that based on the specified assurance the aforesaid cheque of  Rs.2,00,000/- was again presented by the plaintiff on 24-1-2011,. However, to the utter shook and surprise to the plaintiff the said cheque was again dishonoured, as alleged. No bank memo has been filed. 16. That the para 16 of the plaint is false, wrong is denied. it is denied

that that the the pl plai aint ntif ifff was was thus thus ha hara rass ssed ed an and d he su suff ffer ered ed me ment ntal al tension, pain and agony during all these days besides economic loss caused due to the illegal act on the part of the defendant as alleged. 17. That the para 17 of the plaint is false, wrong and vehemently

denied being based on mere conjecture conjectures s without any substance. It is denied that the above said act on the part of the defendant is

 

highly unethical and amounts to high headedness as alleged. It is furth fu rther er de denie nied d that that the plain plaintif tifff is en entit title led d to rec recove overr the ent entire ire amount of Rs.5,00,000/-( Rs. Five Lac Only) alongwith interest @24% p.a. i.e. a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- thus a total sum of Rs. 8,20,000/8,20,00 0/- is due to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff who is liable to pay to the plaintiff along with pendent elite and future interest as alleged or at all. It is submitted that the plaintiff is himself responsible for commissions and commission and other  lathes. 18. That the para 18 of the plaint is false, wrong and vehemently

deni de nied ed.. It is de deni nied ed that that by no nott pa payi ying ng th the e le lega gall du dues es,, th the e defendant has indulged himself in wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the plaintiff and also committed breach of trusts alleged. It is further denied that the plaintiff has been deprived of  the legal dues, which the defendant was legally bound to pay to the plaintiff as alleged. It is also denied that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs.8,20,000/- ( Rs. Eight Lac and Twenty Thousand Only) from the defendant alongwith pendent elite and future interest as alleged. It is submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant least of the amount of Rs.8,20,000/- alongwith any kind of interest. It fact the defe de fend ndan antt in en enti titl tled ed to cl clai aim m da dama mage ges s fr from om th the e pl plai aint ntif ifff fo for  r  causing harassment. 19. That para 19 of the plaint is false, wrong and is denied. it is denied

that any cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff and against the defendant an any of the dates least of the dates mentioned under para under reply. It is further denied that the cause of action is continuous and still subsists as alleged. 20&21.

That paras 20 and 21 are legal paras and need no reply. Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court is not denied.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the suit of the plaintiff  may ma y ki kind ndly ly be di dism smis isse sed d wi with th ex exem empl plar ary y co cost st on th the e fa fact cts s an and d

 

circumstances of as mentioned herein above by the interest, in the interest of justice.  And other or further relief may also be granted in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff on the facts and circumstances of  these.

DEFENDANT THROUGH DELHI DATE:

-2014 (O.N RATTANPAL)  ADVOCATE  ADVOCA TE

 

VERIFICATION :

Verified at Delhi on this 6 th day of June, 2014, that the content of  Paras no 1 to 18 of Written Statement on merits are true and correct to my knowledge knowled ge and those of pa para ra no 19 to 20 of the W.S on meri merits ts and paras 1 to 8 of preli prelimi minar nary y ob obje jecti ction ons s cor correc rectt on the in infor forma matio tion n rec recei eived ved an and d believed to be correct. The last para is the humble prayer to this Hon’ble Court.

DEFENDANT

 

IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA, ADJ, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI

SUIT NO. CS/269/2014 IN THE MATTER OF:-

SH. MOHINDER SINGH

…….. PLAINTIFF VERSUS

SH. CHANNI RAM

…… DEFENDANT

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT CHANNI RAM (DW-1) I, Channi Ram S/o Shri Kalyan Ram, Aged About

years and

R/o F-265, Karampura, New Delhi do hereby solemny affirm and declare as under:1. That I am the defendant in the above noted case and am well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and as such competent to swear this affidavit.  

2. That I neither approached the plaintiff nor received any loan Rs.

4,50,000/- from him in April, 2009. Further I had not issued the cheques bearing no.659294 dated 09-04-2009 for a sum of Rs. 2,50 2,50,00 ,000/0/- an and d che cheque que no no.6 .6592 59296 96 da dated ted 2020-12 12-20 -2010 10 fo forr Rs Rs.. 2,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, East Patel Nagar, Delhi in favour of the plaintiff, in discharge of my liabili liability ty against the said loan. I have also neither written any ‘Samjhauta Patra; __ I have signed the same. The photocopy of the Smjhauta Patra does not bear my signatures. I am also not of its contents.

3. I am law abiding, peaceful and in service and god fearing person.

Same into with she plaintiff through a common friend who was work wo rkin ing g in an ST STD D Bo Both th.. Wi With th th the e pa pass ssag age e of time time we bo both th,, plaintiff and my self became more friendly any in 2007, decided to

 

pool out sources and started small business sale & purchase and renting of the properties and I have two blank chques which had only my signatures to the plaintif plaintifff with clear understand understanding ing that the cash of need one of the cheques, in cash property deal, my be utilized, as security under intimation to me. I was to look after  liaison work and the plaintiff to look after the field work. Sometime in November/December,2007 the plaintiff expressed his desire to sell his first floor (without roof rights) of Kothis No. 6/7 Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi measuring 200 Sq Yds. Made efforts and an d he help lped ed the the pl plai aint ntif ifff for for th the e sa sale le of hi his s sa said id floo floorr and and an agre ag reem emen entt da date ted d 18 18.0 .01. 1.20 2008 08 wa was s en ente tere red d in into to be betw twee een n th the e plaintiff and one Shri Ram Chander Rai for a total consideration Rs.. 68 Rs 68,0 ,00, 0,00 000. 0.00 00 an and d the the pl plai aint ntif ifff re rece ceiv ived ed an ad adva vanc nce e of  Rs.12,35,000.00 Rs.12,35 ,000.00 as ‘Bayana’ in cash. The balance was be paid by the purchaser on or before 18-04-2008 in terms of para 1 of the agreement, agreem ent, if the seller failed to execute the sales documents, the purchase was entitled to received double the amount of advance of the Bayana amount. After lot of dilly-de dilly-delaying laying the deal could not matur ma ture e an and d the the pur purcha chaser ser sta start rt dem demand andin ing g the do doub uble le of the advance given to the plaintiff. Thus cornered the plaintiff sought the help/intervention of mine, as I was one of the witness to the agreement to sell. This agreement to Exh. DW-1/1 as it bears my sign signat atur ure e as witn witnes ess s an and d th the e pl plai aint ntif ifff ha has s al also so ad admi mitt tted ed th the e existence of the agreement.

4. That in the meantime I took a friendly loan of Rs.4,50,000/- ( Rs.

Four Lac and Fifty Thousand Only) from the plaintiff in cash. In Janua Jan uary ry 20 2009 09 for for sam same e urg urgen entt ne need ed.. On the insis insisten tence ce of the plaintiff, I made since efforts convinced Shri Ram Chnder Rai, the Purc Pu rcha hase ser, r, to ag agre ree e to rece receiv ive e on Rs Rs.. 12 12,3 ,35, 5,00 000. 0.00 00 an and d th the e plaintiff agreed to refund the amount in installments to the said purchaser. However in April, 2010, on the asking of the plaintiff I paid the entire amount of Rs.4,50,000.00 loan, taken from the plaintiff in January,2009 to the purchaser Shri Ram Chander Rai, on behalf of the plaint against receipt. Thus in deference to the inst instru ruct ctio ions ns of the the pl plai aint ntif ifff I pa paid id th the e en enti tire re lo loan an am amou ount nt of  Rs.4,50,000/- to Shri Ram Chander Rai and __ of the receipt was

 

sentt to the plai sen plainti ntiff. ff. Th Thus us no nothi thing ng remai remained ned du due e fro from m me the plaintiff. While sending receipts to the plaintiff I also requested the pl plai ainti ntiff ff to retur return n my sec secur urity ity che cheque ques s giv given en in 20 2007 07 be beari aring ng nos.659294 & 659296 since it was not possible to continue our   joint venture of Sale/ Purchase & Renting of properties. The letter  dated 08-04-2010 addressed to plaintiff laongwith receipt are Ex. DW-1/2( colly). 5. That I had not taken any loan from the plaintiff in April, 2009. And

had not issued the two cheques bearing no. 659294 dated 09-042009 for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and cheque no.65 no.659296 9296 dated 2012-2010 as acknowledgement of the said loan. I had issued these two cheques nos 659294 and 659296 in the year 2007 to the plaintiff when we decided to start a small time business of sale/ purchase of property and renting. These cheques did not have any date name of the plaintiff and the amounts mentioned in these cheques, but only my signatures. These cheques were given as security to be used in need for finalising any sale/ purchase deal. The plaintiff has forged these cheque by unauthorisedly filling in deta de tail ils s to gi give ve se semb mbla lanc nce e of lo loan an re refu fund nd.. Th The e pl plai aint ntif ifff ne neve ver  r  approached me for refund of the loan, as no loan was due from me.. I ne me neve verr as aske ked d the the pl plai aint ntif ifff to en enca cash sh th the e ch cheq eque ue fo forr Rs Rs.. 2,50,000.00 which I never gave by filling in all details. No cheque of mine had bounced.

6. That I never assured the plaintiff to make payment of entire loan

allegedly taken by me from him in April, 2009. I had not paid any

amount of Rs. 50,0 0,000.00 .00 to the the plain inttiff as th the ere was no opportunity nor any liability the pay that amount. The plaintiff never  visited my office nor write any letter for the refund of any loan. I had ha d ne never ver ag agree reed d to ref refun und d the loan with with the indu indulg lgenc ence e an and d interference of common friends and agreed to pay intrest @ 24% p. p.a. a. on the the lo loan an for for de dela laye yed d pa paym ymen ent. t. No Sa Samj mjha haut uta a Pa Patr tra a (Agreement) was signed by me. No amount of Rs.50,000/- was adjusted nor an amount of  Rs. 8000/- paid. As I had already paid Rs. 4,50,000/- taken in Janu Ja nuar ary y 20 2009 09,, to Sh Shri ri Ra Ram m Ch Chnd nder er Ra Raii at th the e be behe hest st of th the e

 

plaintiff, there was neit any need nor any ocoassion to enter into such a ‘SAMJRAUTA PATRA’ ( agreement) I had never agreed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- on 28-07.2010 and balance of Rs. 2,50,000 on 28-08-2010. 7. That no legal notice dated 22-9-2010 has been received by me, no

a is due to the plaintiff from the dependent least of the amount of  Rs. 8,20,000/-. The plaintiff has mis-used the security cheques by unautherisedlly and illegally filling in the details in these security cheques. The plaintiff was never asked to deposit any cheque in Decembe,2010 or on any date. By filing this false and frivolous case the deponent is suffering harassment and humiliation, mental agony.

8. That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the

dependent least of the amount of Rs. 8,20,000.00 ( Rs. Eight and Twenty Thousand Only) nor the plaintiff is entitled to recover any interest.

DEPONENT VERIFICATION:Verified at Delhi on this___ day of May, 2015 that the contents of my affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. DEPONENT

 

IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA, ADJ, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI

SUIT NO. CS/269/2014 IN THE MATTER OF:-

SH. MOHINDER SINGH

…….. PLAINTIFF VERSUS

SH. CHANNI RAM

…… DEFENDANT

EVIDENCE BY BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT UDAY CHANDRA THAKUR (DW-2) I, Uday Chandra Thakur S/o Late Ram Pdartha Thakur aged about 52 years and R/o RZ-K-2/79, Nihal Vihal, Near Nangloi, Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:1. Tha Thatt I know know both Shri Moh Mohind inder er Singh Singh,, the plain plaintif tifff and Shri Chan Ch anni ni Ra Ram, m, th the e de defe fend ndan antt wh who o us used ed to visi visitt the the ST STD D Booth/Shop where I had been working earlier.

2. That bot both h plainti plaintiff ff and def defendant endant had st started arted a sale/purc sale/purchase hase and renting business in a small way some times in 2007. The defendant had told me that he had given two cheques as security, only signed, to the plaintiff to be used in connection with property deal as the plaintiff was to do filed work and defe de fend ndan antt to do liai liaiso son n wo work rk wi with th go govt vt.. ag agen enci cies es,, as he working in shifting in Delhi Jal Board.

3. Tha Thatt the defen defendant dant Sh Shri ri Chan Channi ni Ram help helped ed Shri Mohi Mohinder  nder  Singh in the sale of his first floor, without roof rights, of his kothi No.6/7, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi measuring 200 SQ. Yds. A deal to sell the said floor was finalized and on 18-01-2008 and on 18-01-2008 the plaintiff entered into an

 

agreement to sell which is already Ex. DW-1/1 (colly) with one Shri

Ram

Chander

Rai

for

a

consideration

of

Rs.

68,0 68 ,00, 0,00 000. 0.00 00.. It wa was s also also agre agreed ed that that an am amou ount nt of Rs Rs.. 12,35,000.00 was to be paid as advance/ bayana. The said agreement was signed in my presence by both the purchaser  and seller and I identify their signatures at ‘A’ and ‘B’. I had signed as witness no.1 and defendant as witness no.2. a receipt was also typed at the last page of the agreement and the plaintiff started counting the bayana and in the meantime I went to my shop, as I received an urgent call, alongwith the defendant.

4. Th That at,, how howev ever er,, th the e de deal al of the the ab abov ove e sa sale le coul could d no nott na natu ture re and an d th the e def defend endan antt pa paid id an am amou ount nt of Rs Rs.4 .4,5 ,50, 0,000 000.0 .00 0 on behalf of the plaint plaintiff iff to the purchaser Shri Ram Chande Chanderr Rai vide vide rec recei eivi ving ng dated dated 05.04. 05.04.20 2010 10 wh whic ich h is Ex Ex.. DW DW-/ -/2. 2. The purc pu rchas haser er has sign signed ed th this is rece receipt ipt as wi witne tness ss no. no.1 1 wh whic ich h bears my signatures at point ‘B’. Another person namely Shri  Arvinder Seth signed as witness no.2.

DEPONENT VERIFICATION VERIFICATION :

Verified Veri fied at Delh Delhii on this

day of Marc March, h, 2016 2016,, and I say that the

contents of my affidavit have been read over to me in my vernacular and the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEFENDANT