In the Court of Sh.

Vivek Beniwal, Civil Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Court

Civil Suit No. 2017/2018

In the matter of:-

Mukesh Bansal ....Plaintiff

vs.

Delhi Buildings & other Construction Welfare Board & Another ....Defendants

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING WRITTEN

STATEMENT

Most respectfully submitted:

1. It is stated that the Hon’ble Court had directed the Defendant No. 1 on

_____________ to file the Written Statement.

2. Defendant No. 1 submits that thereafter it diligently endeavoured to prepare an

appropriate Written Statement based upon the records available and in view of

the contentions presented by the . However, in order to counter the specific

contentions of the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 had to find certain letters from its

records. These letters were available in different files from different departments

within and outside the answering Defendant Corporation. The procurement of

such letters and information related to the same caused delay in filing of the

Written Statement.
3. It is further stated that Defendant No.1 has made the present application in good

faith and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Defendant No.1 and

against the Plaintiff. Defendant No.1 humbly submits that rejecting the relief

south shall cause irreparable loss or injury to them.

4. Defendant No.1 therefore submits that the present delay of____ days be

condoned, for which the Defendant No.1 shall be forever obligated.

PRAYER

In the aforesaid mentioned circumstances, it is humbly prayed to the Hon’ble Court as

under:-

1. Condone a delay of ____ days in filing of the Written Statement.

2. Pass such other and further orders, as it may deem fit to the Hon’ble Court in the

facts and circumstances of the case.

Defendant No. 1
through

Abhimanyu Garg
(Advocate for Defendant No. 1)
5B, Court Road
Tara Chand Mathur Marg
 Delhi – 110054
Abhimanyu.legal@gmail.com
9811092113
New Delhi
Dt.
In the Court of Sh. Vivek Beniwal, Civil Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Court

Civil Suit No. 2017/2018

In the matter of:-

Mukesh Bansal ....Plaintiff

vs.

Delhi Buildings & other Construction Welfare Board & Another ....Defendants

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1

The present Written Statement is being filed on behalf of Defendant No. 1 to the Suit

for Recovery of the Plaintiff wherein the Plaintiff is erroneously seeking recovery of

Rs. 46,890/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Only). The

Defendant at the outset craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to respond to the averments

of the Plaintiff through Preliminary Objections, which clearly manifest that the claims

of the Plaintiff are based on wilful suppressions and ulterior motives of ​malafide.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs. 46,890/- (Rupees

Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Only) from the Defendant No. 1.

The claim of the Plaintiff is completely based on a Retail invoice dated

 09.07.2015, in which the Defendant No. 1 has acknowledged that the goods were

delivered but the same is being denied by the Defendant No. 1 as being false and

misleading since, no person from the Defendant No. 1 is said to have signed the

invoice.

2. That the Defendant No. 1 is a Public Sector Undertaking and if any goods are

required by it, it can be done only by an order issued by its concerned department

and authorities. In the present case, no such order was issued to the Plaintiff and

on being asked for the same along with the bills, the Plaintiff could not produce it.

STATUS OF THE PARTIES

a. The Plaintiff has described itself in Para 2 of the suit that it is involved in the

business of printing and supplying of various types of stationery, printed forms,

computer stationery and accessories. While, the Defendant No. 1 is a public sector

undertaking functioning under the directives of the Government of India, which

accountable to the Public Exchequer. It is not unbeknownst that the Plaintiff is

trying to misguide the court without having a formal contract. If the Bill is

allowed, it would result into losses to the Defendant No. 1, which would be

accounted to the Public Exchequer.

PARAWISE REPLY
It is submitted that the submissions and averments mentioned in the plaint are denied

in totality, unless specifically admitted hereinafter. The answering defendant will

provide para-wise reply to corresponding paragraphs of the suit plaint:

1) The contents of the Para are denied for want of knowledge to the extent that the

Plaintiff is a citizen of India, who is the sole proprietor of M/s SMAT Forms and

the Plaintiff controls and manages the said firm, which is engaged in the

business of printing and supplying of various types of stationery, printed forms.

It is however denied that the Plaintiff is fully conversant with the facts of the

case as per the information received and delivered from the records and the

books of the Plaintiff’s accounts, maintained in usual and ordinary course of

business.

2) The contents of the Para are denied for want of knowledge. It is denied that the

Plaintiff takes orders from different clients/customers/companies for printings of

their materials and supplying material to them and incurs expenditures in this

process (papers, designing, printing, purchase of products etc.) and in turn,

plaintiff raises bills upon its clients. It is submitted that the Defendant No. 1 was

never a client/ customer, of the Plaintiff.

3) The contents of Para are denied as already mentioned above, that the Defendant

No. 1 was not a customer of the Plaintiff. It is denied that Defendant No. 1

acknowledged the same vide Challan No. SF/0098 dated 09.07.2015 which later
 on converted to Bill No. RI-0183 dated 20.07.2015 amounting to Rs. 30,450/-

(Rupees Thirty Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Only) were raised against the

Defendant No. 1. It is also denied, that the Defendant No. 1 never disputed the

correctness of said bills and never raised any objections regarding the Quantity

of the items sold & supplied to the Defendant No. 1. It is submitted that the

Challan No. SF/0098 dated 09.07.2015 which later on converted to Bill No.

RI-0183 dated 20.07.2015 amounting to Rs. 30,450/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand

Four Hundred and Fifty Only), on which the Plaintiff is relying are False and

Misleading. It is submitted that Defendant No. 1 is a Public Sector Undertaking

and if any goods are required by it, it can be done only by an order issued by its

concerned department and authorities. In the present case, no such order was

issued to the Plaintiff and on being asked for the same along with the bills, the

Plaintiff could not produce it.

4) The contents of the Para are denied as there was no supply of the material. It is

also denied, that the goods/material was ordered by the Defendant No. 1 and the

same were acknowledged and raised by the Defendant No. 1. There were no

visits, phone calls or reminders by the Plaintiff as the Defendant No. 1 came to

know of the Plaintiff only when the Legal Notice dated 29.05.2018 was sent to

the address of Defendant No. 1. Thus, it is denied that an amount of Rs. 30,450/-

(Rupees Thirty Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Only) is due and outstanding
 against the Defendant No. 1, which the Defendant No. 1 is liable to pay along

with accrued interest @ 18% per annum.

5) The contents of the Para are denied that the Defendants did not pay any amount

to the plaintiff despite the repeated requests and reminders. Also, it is denied that

the Defendant No. 1 never raised any dispute and never challenged the

correctness of the invoices and material supplied to them even after the said legal

notice sent by the Plaintiff. As already mentioned, there were no visits, phone

calls or reminders by the Plaintiff as the Defendant No. 1 came to know of the

Plaintiff only when the Legal Notice dated 29.05.2018 was sent to the address of

Defendant No. 1. The contents of the Para are admitted to the extent that a legal

notice was sent to the Defendant No. 1 but it is denied that the Defendant No. 1

failed to reply to the said notice, as the Defendant No. 1 had repeatedly asked the

Plaintiff to provide for the order issued by its concerned department and

authorities.

6) The contents of the Para are denied as the Defendant No. 1 is not liable to pay

Rs. 30,450/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Only) along with

accrued interest @ 18% per annum for the delayed period and the interest on the

said principal amount till 18.07.2018 wich calculates upto Rs. 16,440/- (Rupees

Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred And Forty Only). It is also denied that the total
 amount due and outstanding against the Defendant calculates upto Rs. 46,890/-

(Rupees Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Only).

7) The contents of the Para are denied as the Plaintiff cannot claim an interest

@18% and there was no such clause in the invoice for the payment of interest @

24% per annum on delayed payment.

8) The contents of the Para are denied as there arose no cause of action in favour of

the Plaintiff. It is denied that the Defendant placed an order and received the

goods vide various bill dated 20.07.2015 amounting to Rs. 30,450/- (Rupees

Thirty Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Only). It is also denied that the cause

of action arose on each and every occasion when demands for payment of due

amount were made. It did not arise again on 29.05.2018 when the Plaintiff issued

a legal notice and called upon the Defendants to pay the entire outstanding

amount with up to date interest.

9) The contents of Para are denied due to want of knowledge to the extent that the

Plaintiff is doing his business in Delhi. It is denied that the orders/assignments

from the Defendant were received by Plaintiff to Defendant from Delhi. Thus, no

cause of arose in Delhi and this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to try and

entertain the present suit.

 PRAYER

In the light of the above, it is prayed that the suit of the Plaintiff may be dismissed

with costs.

_________________
Defendant No. 1

Abhimanyu Garg
D/2206/2010
(Advocate for Defendant No. 1)
5B, Court Road,Tara Chand Mathur Marg
Delhi – 110054
Abhimanyu.legal@gmail.com
9811092113
New Delhi