IN THE COURT OF SH.

SANJEEV JAIN, ADJ, DELHI

SUIT NO. 781 OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:-

VIJAY KUMAR BINDAL …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

DR. HARISH PAYAL …DEFENDANTS

REPLY OF DEFENDANTS TO THE APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF UNDER

ORDER VII RULE 14 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

A. The application under reply is not mainatainable in its present

form. The application ought to have been filed under Order VIII
Rule 1A CPC. The present application is not maintainable under
Order VII Rule 14 r/w Section 151 CPC.

B. That as per the provision Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC, the

Defendants were required to file documents along with written
statement.

C. That the Plaintiff has already filed the Rejoinder to the Written
statement. If the Defendant is allowed to file documents at this
stage, then the Plaintiff will have no opportunity to deal and rebut
the same.
D. That the only reason assigned in the application under reply is that
the some of the documents were lying in the United States, with
Mr. John Banga, who had taken it to United States with him. It is
pertinent to mention here that, Mr. John Banga has filed an
Application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC on 19.02.2019. It will also
be not out of place to mention that the written statement was also
filed on 19.02.2019 and through the same counsel.

E. That no reasons are assigned in the application by the Defendant

which prevented them him from filing the documents along with
the written statement.

F. That the document as referred by the Defendants are not relevant

for the just decision of this case and is only to just delay the
proceedings.

Preliminary Objections:-

1. The Plaintiff by filing the frivolous application intends to file on record the
new and irrelevant documents, which facts are not even pleaded in the
plaint. The present suit had been filed in the year 1996 and now the
plaintiff is seeking to place on record documents to make new case and to
fill up the lacunas and cover up the weaknesses in its case, which is now
being filed after about 18 years from the date of the institution of the case.

2. The Defendants had filed their written statement in the year 1999 and took
various objections, showing the weakness and deficiencies in the case.
The present application is an attempt to file certain documents to fill up the
 lacunas and weakness of the case and to make out a new case on
different cause of action which is not permissible in law.

3. The Documents now sought to be filed by the plaintiff pertains to the year
1972, 1978 and 1998. Admittedly the plaintiff always remained in
possession of these documents. The Plaintiff has failed to show any
plausible cause for not filing the said documents at the earlier stage and
the permission to file the said documents at this stage has been sought to
fill the lacunas to make a new case and displace the defendant from their
defense, thus the application deserves to be dismissed with exemplary
cost.

4. The Plaintiff claimed that the documents sought to be filed in the present
application are claimed to had been filed in the connected case. It is
submitted that the case filed by plaintiff was separate and only it was
ordered that both cases shall be tried by one court and matters were not
otherwise connected in any manner. The Suit filed by Defendant was for
injunction only and the description of property in possession of defendant
was mentioned in Plaint as well as the site plan filed in September 1998.
The Defendant failed give any sufficient reason as to why the documents
now sought to be filed were not filed earlier. The Amendment application
and application under reply has been filed as the Plaintiff has now realized
that it has no merits in the case in view of defense taken by the defendant
and the case filed by the plaintiff can be dismissed, hence the plaintiff has
indulged in delaying tactics and intends to change the scope and nature of
claim by bringing a new documents which were not filed earlier. The
Plaintiff has only intention to prolong the matter by one way or another.

Reply on Merits:-
1. Denied. It is submitted that admittedly originally the suit was filed in respect
of the land admeasuring 20’ x 8’ comprising of temporary sheds which as
alleged to be in possession of defendant and no other part of the property
was claimed to be in possession of the Defendants. It is denied that the
services of Sh. Laxmi Chand had been terminated on 16.09.1995, which
fact is otherwise irrelevant for deciding the matter in controversy.

2. Denied. The suit filed by Sh. Laxmi Chand and Shri Sat Prakash for
injunction and the order dated 02.11.1994 passed in the said suit is matter
of record. The statement made by the Defendant in the said suit is matter
of record. The Defendant crave leave of the Hon’ble Court to refer the
record of the said case for its time scope, interpretation and purport.

3. Denied. The date of death of Sh. Laxmi Chand and the abatement of the
suit is matter of record. It is submitted that admittedly the suit filed by the
Plaintiff had been abated after the expiry of 90 days from the date of death
of Sh. Luxmi Chand. The order passed by the predecessor of this Hon’ble
Court and of the Hon’ble High Court and of the Transfer of case to this
Hon’ble Court are matter of record. It is denied that after the dismissal of
the appeal preferred to Hon’ble High Court, the cost imposed upon the
applicant was refused.

4. Denied. The suit had been abated on account of the failure and neglect of
the Plaintiff to properly proceed with the case and to take appropriate steps
to implead the legal heirs of deceased defendant. It is denied that during
the period of abatement or prior thereto the defendants have altered the
suit property or physical status thereof. It is denied that the defendants
have raised any unauthorized and illegal construction. Moreover, raising of
alleged unauthorized or illegal construction in any other property than the
 suit property had not prevented/debarred the plaintiff from taking any
action against defendant. The matter concerning other property can not be
clubbed together to avoid the consequences of neglect and failure of
plaintiff to taken any action in accordance with law. It is denied that the
defendants took advantage of the period of abatement or misused any
process of law to create any evidence in their favour or to grab any public
land or altered the suit property.

5. Denied. It is denied that any illegal activities were made by the defendants.
The additional affidavits filed by the Plaintiff were false. The site plan filed
by the Plaintiff proves that the subject matter of the suit was different from
the subject matter now sought to be claimed in the proposed amendment.

6. Denied. It is denied that the facts alleged are germane or material for
disposal of the case. It is denied that there is any material for the
adjudication of real controversy raised in the suit or are necessary to avoid
the multiplicity of the suit.
The proceedings made in the suit filed by Sh. Laxmi Chand and Ors.
and order passed in are matter of record. No adjudication had been made
in the said suit as the plaintiff had admitted the possession of defendant on
the said suit and undertook not to dispossess the defendant except with
due process of law.

7. Matter of record.

8. Denied. It is submitted that Documents how sought to be filed by the

plaintiff are pertaining to the year 1972, 1978 and 1998 and were in
possession of plaintiff. The Plaintiff has failed to show as to how the
documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the case and as why
 the same were not filed earlier, thus the application deserves to be
dismissed with exemplary cost.

9. Denied. It is submitted that the documents claimed to had been filed in

one case does not mean that it shall be read in other case also. The
Defendant failed to specify as to how the documents are relevant and has
not given any sufficient reason as to how the documents were not filed
earlier in the present case. It is denied that the documents sought to be
filed are public documents or no prejudice would be caused to the
defendant if the same are allowed to be taken on record. The Plaintiff is
not entitled to to be rewarded for its omission, failure and neglect and not
entitled to amend suit and make new case despite lapse of more than 18
years.

10. Denied. It is denied that the documents now sought to be placed on record
are relevant for deciding the matter in controversy or are necessary for
adjudication of the disputes.

11. Denied. It is denied that there is no unnecessary delay and latches in

moving the present application. It is submitted that the falsity of claim and
possession of defendant over other land has now been been admitted by
plaintiff which circumstances had been brought on record of the other case
instituted by the defendants by way of an additional affidavit allegedly filed
on 15.10.1998. The Present case was ordered to have been abated in
April 2001, However the abatement was set aside on 25.11.2013 and the
present application has been filed in 12.01.2015. The Plaintiff has never
acted diligently and is now trying to mislead the Hon’ble Court by making
false and frivolous submissions having no bearing on the merits of the
case. It is submitted that admittedly the suit was filed in 1996 and the
 application has been filed in January 2015 hence it is strange that the
Plaintiff is claiming that the application has been filed without any delay. It
is denied that the defendants shall not be prejudice if the present
application is allowed. It is submitted that the present application under
reply is malafide and is made to bring new case by changing the scope
and subject matter of the suit and to meet the objections of the defendants
at this stage avoiding the trial of the case on its merits. It is denied that the
suit property is public property or ear marked for educational purposes or
is for public good.

PRAYER:-
The prayer para of the application is wrong, false, hence, denied. The
application filed by the Plaintiff is false and frivolous and malafide and devoid of
any merits and is thus liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Such other and further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper be also passed.

Defendants

Through

Alok Kumar, Yashvir Sethi &

(D/120/76) (D801/88)
Advocates
KUMAR GARG & ASSOCIATES
W-99, Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi-110048
Ph: 29235764/292357645

Delhi
Dated:
 IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K MEENA, CIVIL JUDGE, DELHI

SUIT NO. 963 OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:-

M/S MANAV BHARTI INDIA

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

LATE SH. LAXMI CHAND

(DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS …DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Jai Prakash Sharma aged 43 years S/o Late Sh. Laxmi Chand R/o
Property adjoining Manav Bharti India International School, Panchsheel Park
South, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am the defendant in the above noted case and am conversant with
the facts and circumstances of the case and able to depose about them.
2. That the accompanying reply to the application under order VII rule 14
read with section 151 CPC has been drafted on my instructions and the facts
stated therein are true to my knowledge while the legal submissions are
information received and believed to be correct.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this _____ day of January, 2015 that the contents of
paras 1 and 2 of my affidavit are true to my knowledge.
DEPONENT