Sonia - Ritu Sharda

 

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SHAHDARA): KKD: DELHI SUIT NO.

/2017

In Re:-

Smt. Sonia Devi & Anr.

…Plaintiffs

Versus

Smt. Ritu Sharda & Ors.

…Defendants

INDEX

S.No.

Particulars

Page No.

Court Fee

1.

Memo of Parties

---

2.

Suit for permanent injunction

3.

Affidavits in support of the suit.

4.

Application U/O 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151, CPC.

Rs.2/-

5.

Affidavits in support of application U/O 39 Rules 1 & 2.

---

6.

Address Form

---

7.

List of documents along with documents

---

8.

Duplicate copy of the suit

---

9.

Vakalatnama

prohibitory

Rs.13/-

---

Rs.2/-

Filed by:

 

Plaintiffs

Through Delhi. Dated:

(MRIDUL JAIN) Advocate

 

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SHAHDARA): KKD: DELHI SUIT NO.

/2017

In Re:Smt. Sonia Devi & Anr.

…Plaintiffs

Versus Smt. Ritu Sharda & Ors.

…Defendants MEMO OF PARTIES

1.

Smt. Sonia Devi W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharda

2.

Sh. Rituraj Sharda S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharda Both R/o A – 166, Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201011.

…Plaintiffs

Versus

1.

Smt. Ritu Sharda W/o Sh. Vikas Sharda R/o E 110, 2nd Floor, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi – 110095.

2.

Sh. Shri Krishan Aggarwal

3.

Smt. Usha Aggarwal W/o Sh. Shri Krishan Aggarwal Both R/o 7/275, Jain Mandir Gali, Farsh Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi 110032.

…Defendants

 

Plaintiffs

Through

Delhi. Dated:

(MRIDUL JAIN) Advocate

 

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SHAHDARA): KKD: DELHI SUIT NO.

/2017

In Re:-

Smt. Sonia Devi & Anr.

…Plaintiffs

Versus

Smt. Ritu Sharda & Ors.

…Defendants

SUIT FOR PERMANENT PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1.

Th That at tthe he p pla lain inti tiff ffs s ar are e la law w ab abid idin ing g an and d pe peac ace e lo lovi ving ng c cit itiz izen ens s of  the state residing at the above said address. The plaintiff no.2 is son of the plaintiff no.1.

2.

Th That at the the d def efen enda dant nt no no.1 .1 (w (wife ife of the the e est stra rang nged ed / d diso isown wned ed so son n of the plaintiff no.1) is daughter in law of the plaintiff no.1. The defendant no.2 is father of the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.3 is mother of the defendant no.1.

3.

Th That at tthe he e eld lder er s son on o off th the e pl plai aint ntif ifff no no.1 .1,, Sh Sh.. Vi Vika kas s Sh Shar arda da h had ad been married married to the d defend efendant ant no.1 no.1.. After so some me time of tthe he marriage there started disputes between the plaintiff’s family and an d the the de defe fend ndan antt no no.1 .1 an and d Sh Sh.. Vi Vika kas s Sh Shar arda da..

He Henc nce, e,

husband of the plaintiff Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharda disowned Sh. Vikas Vika s Sharda and hi his s wife, i.e. i.e.,, the defen defendant dant no no.1. .1.

Pub Public lic

noti no tice ce to this this ef effe fect ct ha had d be been en pub publi lish shed ed in the the ne newsp wspap aper er Dainik Jagran dated 30.09.2001 and since then the plaintiff  and her family including the plaintiff no.2 had no relation with Sh. Vikas Sharda, the defendants or their family.

 

4.

That in th the e mo mon nth of Ju Jully an and d August 2 20 017, the defendan antt no.1 no .1 ma made de ph phon one e ca call lls s to the the plai plaint ntif ifff no no.2 .2 fr from om Mo Mob. b. No.9810048893 but the plaintiff no.2 on seeing on truecaller that that th the e nu numb mber er be belo long ngs s to the the de defe fend ndan antt no no.1 .1 did did no nott attended the phone call. On 04.08.2017, the defe defendant ndant no.1, sent a whatsapp message to the plaintiff no.2 that she want some money (Later on it was revealed that the defendant no.1 was demanding Rs.3.5 Lakhs) and chain (Gold). Surprised by th the e me mess ssag age e the pla lain inttiff iff no no.2 .2 on wh what atsa sapp pp as aske ked d th the e defend def endant ant no. no.1 1 re regar garding ding which mon money ey and cha chain in she was talking because the plaintiff no.2 had no such dealings with the defendant defendant No No.1. .1. On this th the e defen defendant dant no.1 rreplie eplied d that she wants the same not from the plaintiff no.2 but from Sh. Vikas Sharda.

5.

Th That at tthe he p pla lain inti tiff ff n no. o.2 2 to told ld tthe he d def efen enda dant nt n no. o.1 1 th that at h he e ha has s no concern with his brother and she may do whatever she likes do to ag again ainst st Sh. Vika Vikas s Sha Shard rda, a, the the plain plainti tiff ff no no.2 .2 ha has s no concern with him. But the defendant no.1 continued to threat the plaintiff no.2 that in case she is not getting the same she would visit the house of the Sister of the plaintiff no.2 and would create a scene there and would insult and defame the pl plai aint ntif iffs fs an and d da daug ught hter er of the the plai plaint ntif ifff no no.1 .1 am amon ong g the the neig ne ighb hbou ours rs,, re rela lati tive ves s an and d in laws laws of th the e da daug ught hter er of the the plaintiff plainti ff no.1. The pla plaintiff intiff no no.2 .2 tried hi his s level bes bestt to make the defendant no.1 understand that whatever the matter is, the same is between the defendant no.1 and her husband and neither the plaintiffs nor their family including the sister of the plaintiff no.2 has any connection with sh. Vikas Sharda and requested not to to create any such scene. But all in vain vain..

6.

Th That at tthe he p pla lain inti tiff ff n no. o.2 2 in info form rmed ed tthe he s sam ame e to tthe he p pla lain inti tiff ff n no. o.1. 1. The plaintiff no.1 and 2 also tried to make the defendants understand not to create any such scene at the house of her daugh dau ghte terr bu butt all the the de defe fend ndan ants ts told told the the plai plaint ntif iffs fs in cle clear ar worlds that they want Rs.3.5 lakhs and one gold chain, the same sa me be pr prov ovid ided ed ei eith ther er by Sh Sh.. Vika Vikas s Sh Shar arda da or by the the plaintiffs and in case the same is not provided, the defendants

 

along with their friends, relatives, etc. would visit the house of  th the e pl plai aint ntif iffs fs an and d da daug ught hter er of the the pla plain inti tiff ff no no.1 .1 an and d wo would uld collect the residents from neighbourhood / locality and would create a scene and would defame and insult the plaintiffs and daughter of the plaintiff no.1 before the neighbours and in laws law s of the daug daught hter er of the the plai plaint ntiff iff no. no.1. 1.

Th The e pla plain inti tiff ffs s

requested the defendant nos. 2 and 3, to make the defendant no.1 understand not to commit any such act and not to create any such scene but they also talked in the same voice as the defe de fend ndan antt no no.1 .1 an and d to told ld th the e plain lainttiffs iffs th that at in ca case se th the e dema de mand nds s of the the de defe fend ndan antt no no.1 .1 is no nott fu fulf lfil ille led d they they wo woul uld d materialise the threats given by the defendant no.1. 7.

Th That at th the e pla plain inti tiff ffs s in or orde derr to sa save ve re repu puta tattion ion of th the emse mselves lves and daughter of the plaintiff no.1 have made all out efforts to make the defendants understand not to create any scene to defame and insult the plaintiffs and daughter of the plaintiff  no.1 in their locality / neighbourhood, among relatives, etc. butt the bu the de defe fend ndan ants ts are are be bent nt up upon on to do the the sa same me if the the plaintiffs plainti ffs does not succum succumb b to illega illegall deman demands ds of Rs.3.5 lakhs and Gold chain.

8.

Th That at tthe he p pla lain inti tiff ff N No. o.2 2 in th this is rreg egar ard, d, m mad ade e co comp mpla lain intt to th the e SHO PS Vivek Vivek Vihar and Cho Chowki wki Inchar Incharge ge Radh Radhakunj akunj Ch Chowki owki to but the police officials refused to take any action stating that it is a family dispute of civil nature.

9.

Th That at ffam amil ily y of tthe he p pla lain inti tiff ffs s an and d fa fami mily ly o off th the e da daug ught hter er o off th the e plaintiff no.1 are having their respect in society and in case the defendants create a scene in the neighbourhood of the plain pla inti tiff ffs s or that that of the the da daug ught hter er of the the plain plainti tiff ff no no.1 .1 that that would not only malign the image to the plaintiffs and daughter of the plaintiff no.1 but would also create problems in the in laws family of the daughter of the plaintiff no.1 and it would caus ca use e irre irrepa para rabl ble e loss loss to the the im imag age e of the the plai plaint ntif iffs fs an and d daughter of the plaintiff no.1 which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

 

10.. 10

Th That at th the e pla plain inti tiff ffs s have no nott fil filed ed an any y othe otherr simi similar lar su suit it bef befor ore e this Hon’ble Court or before any other court.

11.

That the cause of action arose on 04.08.2017 wh whe e n t he defendant no.1 firstly threatene threatened d the plaintiff no.2. The cause of action is still subsisting and continuing.

12.

That the suit is va vallued for the purpose of court fee and  jurisdiction at Rs.130/- for the relief of permanent injunction, on which, the Court fee of Rs.13/- each is payable and hence the requisite court fees of Rs.13/- has been affixed.

13.. 13

Th That at th the e def defen enda dant nts s re resi side de an and d wo work rk fo forr ga gain in at Sha Shahd hdar ara a Distt., Delhi. Hence, this Hon’ble C Court ourt has got jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.

14.. 14

Th That at the there re was no othe otherr effi effica caci ciou ous s re reme medy dy ava avail ilab able le to the the plaintiff except to file the present suit.

It is, the theref refore ore,, mos mostt res respec pectfu tfully lly pra prayed yed tha thatt thi this s Hon Hon’bl ’ble e Court may kindly be pleased to pass:a)

a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in fa favo vour ur of the the pl plai aint ntif iffs fs an and d ag again ainst st the the de defe fend ndan ants ts thereb the reby y res restra trainin ining g the def defend endant ants, s, the their ir ass associ ociate ates, s, representatives, heirs and attorneys, etc. from entering, visit vis itin ing g the the ho house use of the the plai plaint ntif iffs fs,, da daug ught hter er of the the plaintiff no.1 and / or creating hindrance in peaceful enjoyment, ingress, outgress of house of plaintiffs, i.e., A – 166, Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201011 and / or that that of da daug ught hter er of the the plai plaint ntif ifff no no.1 .1,, i.e. i.e.,, Q - 28 28,, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi - 110032;

b)

costs in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants;

c)

to p pa ass

such o otther/further o orrder(s) w wh hich tth his

Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and

 

circumstances of the case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice.

  Plaintiffs Through Delhi. Dated:

(MRIDUL JAIN)   Advocate

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on this ___ day of August, 2017 that the contents of paras 1 to 11 of the plaint are true and correct to our knowledge and those of paras 12 to 14 of the plaint are true on the basis of information received and believed to be true. Last para is a praye prayerr and su submissions bmissions before this Hon’ble Court.  

Plaintiffs

 

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SHAHDARA): KKD: DELHI SUIT NO.

/2017

In Re:Smt. Sonia Devi & Anr.

…Plaintiffs

Versus Smt. Ritu Sharda & Ors.

…Defendants AFFIDAVIT

I, Sonia Devi W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharda R/o A – 166, Brij Vihar Vih ar,, Gh Ghaz azia iabad bad,, U. U.P. P. 20 2010 1011 11,, do he here reby by so sole lemn mnly ly affi affirm rm an and d declare as under: 1.

Th That at tthe he d dep epon onen entt is tthe he p pla lain inti tiff ff N No. o.1 1 in tthe he a abo bove ve n not oted ed s sui uitt and, an d,

th the ere refo fore re,,

is

we well ll

co conv nver ersa san nt

wi with th

th the e

fact facts s

an and d

circumstances of the present case and is also competent to swear this affidavit on oath.

2.

Th That at tth he de depo pon nen entt ha has s fi file led d th the e ac acco comp mpan anyi ying ng s sui uitt an and d th the e contents of the same have been read over and explained to the deponent in vernacular and he has understood the same to be true and correct and the contents of the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the same may kindly be treated as part and parcel of this affidavit.

DEPONENT VERIFICATION:

I, th the e ab abov ove e na name med d de depo pone nent nt do he here reby by stat state e on so sole lemn mn af affi firm rmat atio ion n that that the the co cont nten ents ts of pa para ra 1 an and d 2 of the the afor afores esaid aid affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief  and nothing material has been kept concealed there from. Verified at Delhi on this

day of

2017. DEPONENT

 

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SHAHDARA): KKD: DELHI SUIT NO.

/2017

In Re:Smt. Sonia Devi & Anr.

…Plaintiffs

Versus Smt. Ritu Sharda & Ors.

…Defendants AFFIDAVIT

I, Rituraj Sharda S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharda R/o A – 166, Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201011, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.

Th That at tthe he d dep epon onen entt is tthe he p pla lain inti tiff ff N No. o.2 2 in tthe he a abo bove ve n not oted ed s sui uitt and, an d,

th the ere refo fore re,,

is

we well ll

co conv nver ersa san nt

wi with th

th the e

fact facts s

an and d

circumstances of the present case and is also competent to swear this affidavit on oath.

2.

Th That at tth he de depo pon nen entt ha has s fi file led d th the e ac acco comp mpan anyi ying ng s sui uitt an and d th the e contents of the same have been read over and explained to the deponent in vernacular and he has understood the same to be true and correct and the contents of the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the same may kindly be treated as part and parcel of this affidavit.

DEPONENT VERIFICATION:

I, th the e ab abov ove e na name med d de depo pone nent nt do he here reby by stat state e on so sole lemn mn af affi firm rmat atio ion n that that the the co cont nten ents ts of pa para ra 1 an and d 2 of the the afor afores esaid aid affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief  and nothing material has been kept concealed there from. Verified at Delhi on this

day of

2017. DEPONENT

 

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SHAHDARA): KKD: DELHI SUIT NO.

/2017

In Re:-

Smt. Sonia Devi & Anr.

…Plaintiffs

Versus

Smt. Ritu Sharda & Ors.

…Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH SEC. 151 C.P.C. ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.

That the plaintiffs have filed the accompanying suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, the contents of  the the sa same me ma may y ki kind ndly ly be re read ad as pa part rt an and d pa parc rcel el of this this application which are not being repeated herein for the sake of  brevity.

2.

Th That at tthe he ap appl plic ican ants ts / p pla lain inti tiff ffs s ha have ve a g goo ood d pr prim ima a fa faci cie e ca case se iin n their favour and against the defendants and the suit is most likely to be decreed.

3.

That the ba ballance of conve ven nience al also so li lie es in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

4.

Th That at tthe he p pla lain inti tiff ffs s wi will ll s suf uffe ferr an ir irre repa para rabl ble e lo loss ss a and nd iinj njur ury y in case, the ex parte ad interim injunction is not granted to the appl ap plic ican ants ts

/

pla lain inttiffs iffs

ag agai ain nst

th the e

de defe fend ndan ants ts

the herreb eby y

restra res traini ining ng the def defend endant ants s fro from m tra transf nsferr erring ing / cre creati ating ng any

 

third party interest in the suit premises to any other person till the decision of the suit.   5.

That the pr pre ese sen nt su suiit is a fit ca cas se where the int interim relie lief  should be granted in the interest of justice. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that an ex-parte Ad-

in inte teri rim m in inju junc ncti tion on orde orderr ma may y kin kindl dly y be pa pass ssed ed in fa favo vour ur of the the pl plai aint ntif iffs fs an and d ag agai ains nstt the the de defe fend ndan ants ts ther thereb eby y rest restrain raining ing the

defe de fend ndan ants ts,,

th thei eirr

as asso soci ciat ate es,

re repr pres esen enta tati tive ves, s,

he heir irs s

an and d

atto at torn rney eys, s, etc. etc. fr from om en ente teri ring ng,, vi visi siti ting ng th the e ho hous use e of th the e plai plaint ntif iffs fs,, da daug ught hter er of th the e plai plaint ntif ifff no no.1 .1 an and d / or cr crea eati ting ng hindrance in peaceful enjoyment, ingress, outgress of house of  plaintif plai ntiffs, fs, i.e i.e., .,

A – 166, Brij Vi Vihar, har, Ghaz Ghaziaba iabad, d, U.P. 201 201011 011

and / or that of daughter of the plaintiff no.1, i.e., Q - 28, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi - 110032 .

Any other order(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the applicant against the defendant.

  Applicants / Plaintiffs Through

Delhi Dated:

(MRIDUL JAIN) Advocate

 

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SHAHDARA): KKD: DELHI SUIT NO.

/2017

In Re:Smt. Sonia Devi & Anr.

…Plaintiffs

Versus Smt. Ritu Sharda & Ors.

…Defendants AFFIDAVIT

I, Sonia Devi W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharda R/o A – 166, Brij Vihar Vih ar,, Gh Ghaz azia iabad bad,, U. U.P. P. 20 2010 1011 11,, do he here reby by so sole lemn mnly ly affi affirm rm an and d declare as under: 1.

Th That at tthe he d dep epon onen entt is tthe he p pla lain inti tiff ff N No. o.1 1 in tthe he a abo bove ve n not oted ed s sui uitt and, an d,

th the ere refo fore re,,

is

we well ll

co conv nver ersa san nt

wi with th

th the e

fact facts s

an and d

circumstances of the present case and is also competent to swear this affidavit on oath.

2.

Th That at tthe he d dep epon onen entt ha has s fi file led d th the e ac acco comp mpan anyi ying ng a app ppli lica cati tion on a and nd the contents of the same have been read over and explained to the the de depo pone nent nt in ve vern rnacu acula larr an and d he ha has s un unde ders rsto tood od the the same to be true and correct and the contents of the same are nott be no bein ing g repe repeate ated d he here rein in for for the the sa sake ke of br brev evit ity y an and d the the same sa me ma may y ki kind ndly ly be tre treated ated as pa part rt an and d pa parc rce el of this his affidavit. DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, th the e ab abov ove e na name med d de depo pone nent nt do he here reby by stat state e on so sole lemn mn af affi firm rmat atio ion n that that the the co cont nten ents ts of pa para ra 1 an and d 2 of the the afor afores esaid aid affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief  and nothing material has been kept concealed there from. Verified at Delhi on this

day of

2017. DEPONENT

 

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SHAHDARA): KKD: DELHI SUIT NO.

/2017

In Re:Smt. Sonia Devi & Anr.

…Plaintiffs

Versus Smt. Ritu Sharda & Ors.

…Defendants AFFIDAVIT

I, Rituraj Sharda S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharda R/o A – 166, Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201011, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 3.

Th That at tthe he d dep epon onen entt is tthe he p pla lain inti tiff ff N No. o.2 2 in tthe he a abo bove ve n not oted ed s sui uitt and, an d,

th the ere refo fore re,,

is

we well ll

co conv nver ersa san nt

wi with th

th the e

fact facts s

an and d

circumstances of the present case and is also competent to swear this affidavit on oath.

4.

Th That at tthe he d dep epon onen entt ha has s fi file led d th the e ac acco comp mpan anyi ying ng a app ppli lica cati tion on a and nd the contents of the same have been read over and explained to the the de depo pone nent nt in ve vern rnacu acula larr an and d he ha has s un unde ders rsto tood od the the same to be true and correct and the contents of the same are nott be no bein ing g repe repeate ated d he here rein in for for the the sa sake ke of br brev evit ity y an and d the the same sa me ma may y ki kind ndly ly be tre treated ated as pa part rt an and d pa parc rce el of this his affidavit. DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, th the e ab abov ove e na name med d de depo pone nent nt do he here reby by stat state e on so sole lemn mn af affi firm rmat atio ion n that that the the co cont nten ents ts of pa para ra 1 an and d 2 of the the afor afores esaid aid affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief  and nothing material has been kept concealed there from. Verified at Delhi on this

day of

2017. DEPONENT

 

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SHAHDARA): KKD: DELHI SUIT NO.

/2017

In Re:Smt. Sonia Devi & Anr.

…Plaintiffs

Versus Smt. Ritu Sharda & Ors.

…Defendants ADDRESS FORM

1.

Smt. Sonia Devi W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharda

2.

Sh. Rituraj Sharda S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharda Both R/o A – 166, Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201011.

…Plaintiffs

Versus

1.

Smt. Ritu Sharda W/o Sh. Vikas Sharda R/o E 110, 2nd Floor, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi - 110095

2.

Sh. Shri Krishan Aggarwal

3.

Smt. Usha Aggarwal W/o Sh. Shri Krishan Aggarwal Both R/o 7/275, Jain Mandir Gali, Farsh Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi 110032.

…Defendants

 

Plaintiffs

Through

Delhi. Dated:

(MRIDUL JAIN) Advocate

 

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SHAHDARA): KKD: DELHI SUIT NO.

/2017

In Re:-

Smt. Sonia Devi & Anr.

…Plaintiffs

Versus

Smt. Ritu Sharda & Ors.

…Defendants

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS

S.No.

Particulars

Pg.No.

1.

Letter dated 26.09.2001 to the SSP, GZB.

2.

Postal Receipts

3.

Affidavit dated 26.09.2001

4.

Dainik Jagran Newspaper dated 30.09.2001

5.

Complaint to SHO PS Vivek Vihar

6.

Complaint to Chowki Incharge Radhakunj Chowki

Plaintiffs Through

Delhi Dated:

(MRIDUL JAIN) Advocate