CPC

Reply On Behalf Of the Plaintiff To The Application Under Order I RULE 10 CPC

March 16, 202113425 By Avinash Nandan Sharma

IN THE COURT OF MS. RITIKA RAO, ADJ,

TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

Civil Suit No. 16 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Gaurav Jindal …..Plaintiff

VERSUS

Mr. Trilochan Jindal & Ors. ..…Defendants

D.O.H: 28.02.2020

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF TO THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC FILED BY APPLICANT MS. ANJANI

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRILIMINARY SUBMISSIONS / OBJECTIONS

That the present application is not maintainable and an abuse of the process of law and the same needs to be dismissed out rightly with heavy costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the applicant.
That the applicant is not known to the plaintiff and the present petition is totally false and fabricated and the applicant is a fake person who has fraudulently represented herself as interested party before this Hon’ble Court by filing this application on false grounds.
That the suit property belongs to Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and was purchased by the collective fund of the family on the name of defendant no.2 , Mrs. Anandi Jindal who is the mother of the plaintiff and have not been sub divided or partitioned and plaintiff and defendants no.1,2 & 3 are in joint possession of the same.
That the present application has been presented on the basis of the sale purchase documents which are totally false, fabricated and manipulated. It is submitted that a property in joint possession can not be sold as the suit property belongs to Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and have not been sub divided or partitioned and plaintiff is in joint possession of the same with defendants . It is submitted that a property in joint possession can not be sold by one co-sharer. There might be a connivance between applicant and defendant no.2
It is pertinent to mention here that original papers of the suit property showing the absolute ownership of the Respondent no.2 have not been filed by the applicant in support of his claim and she is trying to misguide by filing forged papers of sale and purchase only without even photocopy of the papers of suit property.
That the present application is time barred and totally fake based on cooked up story and has been filed by the applicant in connivance with the respondent no.2.

REPLY ON MERITS

That para no. 1 is not denied as it is a matter of record , hence needs no reply.
That the contents of para no. 2 of the application are totally wrong and false, hence specifically, vehemently and emphatically It is submitted that plaintiff has no knowledge of the documents of sale and purchase as has been claimed by the applicant. However, the husband of the applicant, Sugender Tiwari is the main game player and has been trying to take the benefit of the family dispute of the plaintiff and respondents since January 2015. He has many times threatened the plaintiff and his wife with the internal support of respondent no.2 Hence applicant is not a bonafide purchaser and has no right to claim possession on the just share of the plaintiff in the suit property by making any forged agreement with any co – owner without the consent of others.
That the contents of para no. 3 of the application are totally wrong and false, hence specifically, vehemently and emphatically The applicant is just stating the false and concocted story according to his will. It is pertinent to mention here that original papers of the suit property showing the absolute ownership of the Respondent no.2 have not been filed by the applicant in support and she is trying to misguide by filing forged papers of sale and purchase. The applicant be put to strict proof of the averments made therein.
That the contents of para no. 4 of the application are totally wrong and false, hence specifically, vehemently and emphatically denied as the plaintiff has no knowledge of said sale – purchase and applicant’s husband Sugender Tiwari in connivance with respondent no.2 is playing this game and has threatened the plaintiff and his wife many times. Applicant has never resided on the ground floor of the suit property and this para is nothing but the bundle of lies.
That the contents of para no. 5 of the application are totally wrong and false, hence No police complaint copy has been annexed with the present application. The applicant be put to strict proof of the averments made therein.
That the contents of para no. 6 is denied and disputed. It is submitted that the husband of the applicant, Sugender Tiwari is the main game player and has been trying to take the benefit of the family dispute of the plaintiff and respondents since January 2015. He has many times threatened the plaintiff and his wife with the internal support of respondent no.2, the mother of the plaintiff.
That the contents of para no. 7 of the complainant are totally wrong and false, hence specifically, vehemently and emphatically It is just the false and vague allegations leveled by the applicant against the plaintiff to take advantage of her forged act. It is submitted that the plaintiff had filed this Suit For Partition on 19.01.2015 and came to know about the said illegal claim on the suit property by the applicant when he received a legal notice dated 02.02.2015 sent by the applicant through her advocate Sh. Amit Kumar and the same was replied on 21.02.2015 by the plaintiff through his advocate. Another legal notice was also sent on 31.03.2016 by the applicant to the plaintiff with the claim of different property which was also replied by the plaintiff through advocate. The present application is time barred. The copy of legal notices and its replies along with proof of service are annexed herewith.
That the contents of para no. 8 of the application are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the plaintiff is the younger son of the defendant no.1 and 2, Sh. Trilochan Jindal and Smt. Anandi Jindal and younger brother of defendant no.3, Sunil Jindal and the applicant’s husband Sh. Sugender Tiwari is trying to get benefit out of this family dispute by making forged sale – purchase papers on the name of his wife, the applicant. It is reiterated here that the suit property belongs to Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and was purchased by the collective fund of the family on the name of defendant no.2 , Mrs. Anandi Jindal who is the mother of the plaintiff and have not been sub divided or partitioned and plaintiff and defendants no.1,2 & 3 are in joint possession of the same.
That the contents of para no. 9 of the application are totally wrong, false and concocted, hence specifically, vehemently and emphatically It is submitted that plaintiff performed love and inter-caste marriage with Ms. Sabita and respondent no.2 was not happy with it and family relation become strained.
That the contents of para no. 10 of the application are totally wrong, false and concocted, hence specifically, vehemently and emphatically
That the contents of para no. 11 of the application are totally wrong, false and concocted, hence specifically, vehemently and emphatically

Last para of the application is prayer clause which is wrong, incorrect, misconceived and hence denied and deserves outright rejection.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the present application of the defendant may kindly be dismissed with heavy cost in favour of the plaintiff and against the applicant, in the interest of justice.

Any other order (s) , relief (s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the applicant.

Plaintiff

Through

New Delhi Counsel

Date: 08.02.2020

Verification

Verified at Delhi on 8^th day of February, 2020 that the contents of above Reply are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.