IN THE COURT OF SH.

DEEPAK DABBAS, ADJ, DISTRICT

WEST, TIS-HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

C.S. NO. _______________ OF 2017

SMT. RAMESHWERI …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

THROUGH ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(WEST ZONE) OFFICE AT: EC-BLOCK,
VISHAL ENCLAVE, TAGORE GARDEN
EXTENSION, NEW DELHI …DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE

DEFENDANT IN THE “SUIT FOR COMPENSATION
UNDER LAW OF TORTS”

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOEWTH:

1. That the defendant organisation is a civic body having a

responsibility of monitoring, upgrading and developing civic

amenities and services to residential and commercial areas,

located at S.P. Mukharjee Civic Centre, Minto Road, JLN Marg

Delhi.

2. It is submitted that the defendant has gone through the

averments made in the plaint and affidavit filed in support of

the plaint. The averments, not specifically admitted, are

denied. The Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The

averments made are not correct and false and the suit is not

maintainable under the eye of law hence be dismissed.

BRIEF OF RELEVANT FACTS :

That the petitioner had filed the instant read petition levelling

false allegations which are based on the fictitious and forged

ground so as to save out their faces for the wrong, committed

on their part by violating the law of the land i.e. encroaching

upon the municipal land and raising illegal interest acture in

the form of Pucca infrastructure on the municipal and

knowing well within their intention that they have no legal

right or legal authority to raise the structure on the said land

and that the incident has occurred as a result of their own

illegal activities attributable on their part, by not taking

requisite care and due diligence at the time of removal of their

own unauthorised and illegal construction on the municipal

land by themselves and that the respondents MCD is not a

necessary party as there is no voluntary and involuntary

involvement of any official of the respondent MCD with the

alleged incident.

As no work of digging of the drain adjoining to the spot of

incident was ever conducted by the respondent as per

available record of the respondent as such, the question of

involvement of any official of MCD does not arise at all and the

suit under reply is liable to be dismissed on this very ground,

 being a false, forged and based on fictitious statements of the

petitioner is made on oath before this honourable court.

Further, it reveals after going through the detailed study of the

contents of the suit under reply and it has been found that

there is no involvement of any official of MCD concerned in the

alleged incident at any time in any manner whatsoever and

there is a case of personal, careless activities on the part of

petitioners themselves.

That over the years, the occupants had done unauthorised

encroachments and constructions in their Houses as a matter

of fact originally plot for measuring 22.5 m² for awarded for

the use of settlement Colony in multiple and constructions up

to single story were allowed. However, with the passage of the

time, second and third floors were added illegally and the

municipal land and public road, were encroached upon, by

everybody in front of their houses.

Thereafter an encroachment removal program started. The

house owners themselves Puncher at the front portion of their

houses. The supporting walls of the houses were removed

without any technical knowledge and after open to

environment, soaking in rain water, the building at F – 225, JJ

Colony, Madhav Pura, deteriorated and as a result collapsed.

PARAWISE REPLY TO THE SUIT :

1. That the contents of Para 1 are wrong and denied. It is

submitted in this regard that the petitioner had filed the

 instant suit levelling false allegations which are based on the

fictitious and forged ground so as to save out their faces for

the wrong committed on their part by violating the law of the

land i.e. encroaching the municipal land and raising illegal

infrastructure in the form of Pucca infrastructure on the

municipal land and knowing well within their intention that

they have no legal right or legal authority to raise the

structure on the said land and that the incident has occurred

as a result of their own illegal activities attributable on their

part, by not taking requisite care and due diligence at the time

of removal of their own unauthorised and illegal construction

on the municipal land by themselves and that the respondents

MCD is not a necessary party as there is no voluntary and

involuntary involvement of any official of the respondent MCD,

with the alleged incident.

2. That the Contents of Para-2 are matter of record hence need

no reply from the answering defendant.

3. That the Contents of Para-3 up-till they are matter of record

need no reply from the answering defendant. In this regard, it

is submitted that there is no voluntary and in voluntary

involvement of any official of the respondent MCD with the

alleged incident.

4. That the Contents of Para-4 are wrong, hence denied. It is

submitted that because no work of digging of the drain

 adjoining to the spot of incident was ever conducted by the

respondents as per available record of the respondents as

such, hence the question of respondent being negligent does

not arise. It is also to be submitted in this regard that over

the years unauthorised encroachments and constructions are

been done and as a matter of fact originally plot measuring

22.5 m² was awarded for the use of settlement colonies and

constructions up to single story were allowed. However, with

the passage of the time the second and third floors were added

illegally and the municipal land and public road were also

encroached upon by the residents in front of their houses.

But, when encroachment removal program started, the house

owners themselves Puncher at the front portion of their

houses, and supporting walls of the houses were removed

without any technical knowledge and thereafter, after soaking

in rain water, the building at F – 225, JJ Colony, Madhav

Pura, collapsed. Hence, under such a situation the question of

involvement of any official of MCD does not arise at all and the

suit under reply is liable to be dismissed on this very ground,

as being a false, forged suit.

5. That the content of Para-5 are wrong hence denied. The

content of para does not require the answering defendant to

reply as the para is dealing with the calculation of the amount

to be charged as compensation under the stated situation.

While the answering defendant is of the view that since there

 arise no liability of the answering defendant hence the

question of calculation of the compensation needs no answer

from the defendant. It is further submitted in this regard that

the calculations done with regard to the compensation amount

are wrongly done by the plaintiff as the situation under

consideration arose due to their own acts of encroachment of

the municipal lands illegally and not because of any other

reasons and it is due to this reason they are not liable for any

amount instead the facts narrated clearly describes that they

are guilty of encroaching the government land/property.

6. That the content of Para-6 are wrong hence denied. It is

submitted that the present case is not the case of negligence

done by the defendant rather present case is a case of

encroachment over the public land and then negligently

removal of the encroachment by the plaintiff and under such a

situation the question of vicarious liability does not stand and

the answering defendant cannot be held liable for these stated

reasons.

7. That the content of Para-7 are wrong hence denied. It is

submitted that there is a specific provision and process

through which the municipal organisation works and

according to that Act, there is a specific provision while

dealing with any complaint against the defendant. It is

submitted accordingly that the same has not been followed

hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed, as there is no such

 indication of following the procedure as per the section 478 of

the DMC Act.

8. That the content of Para-8 are wrong hence denied. It is

submitted that under the above stated circumstances there

exists no cause of action against the defendant. It is further

stated that while deciding the issue of limitation the court has

to see everything in the light of the facts provided.

{{{{{{

9. That the content of para-9 are wrong hence denied. It is

submitted that the suit is wrongly valued by the plaintiffs and

hence is liable to be dismissed.

10. That the content of para-10 are wrong hence denied. It is

submitted that the plaintiff has wrongly stated that the office

of defendant is suited within the jurisdiction of this

honourable court.

11. That the content of para-10 are wrong hence denied.

12. The other allegations of the plaint which are not specifically

admitted herein are denied. The plaintiff is put to strict proof

of the same.  

Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss

the suit with cost as there exists no ground against the
answering defendant.
  

Through

Counsel (Defendant)

Verification :
I,
aged
about (age)  years, do hereby declare that the facts stated in
paras 1 to 11 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief and I believe the same to be true and
correct. Hence, verified on this the     day of  September, 2018
at Delhi.        

PLACE: Delhi

DATED: (Defendant) 

IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABBAS, ADJ, DISTRICT

WEST, TIS-HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

C.S. NO. _______________ OF 2017

SMT. RAMESHWERI …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

THROUGH ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(WEST ZONE) OFFICE AT: EC-BLOCK,
VISHAL ENCLAVE, TAGORE GARDEN
EXTENSION, NEW DELHI …DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, am and
competent to swear this affidavit :-

1. That the organisation, being the respondent in the above

noted appeal I am well conversant with the facts of the
case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying Written Statement has been

drafted at my instance, and the contents thereof have
been read over and explained to me in vernacular, which
are true and correct as to my knowledge and the same are
to be read and treated as part of this affidavit as the same
are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this day of 2018 that the
contents of the appeal are true and correct as to my knowledge. No
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABBAS, ADJ, DISTRICT

WEST, TIS-HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

C.S. NO. _______________ OF 2017

SMT. RAMESHWERI …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

THROUGH ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(WEST ZONE) OFFICE AT: EC-BLOCK,
VISHAL ENCLAVE, TAGORE GARDEN
EXTENSION, NEW DELHI …DEFENDANTS

REPLY TO APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6

RULE 17 C.P.C.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOEWTH:

1. That the contents of initial paragraph are matter of fact are

matter of record hence needs no reply from the answering

defendant.

2. That the present application under order 6 rule 17 of CPC

1908 filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the suit

has to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed

to establish that despite due diligence the amendment could

not be incorporated at the early stage of the suit. Hence the

present application does not stand in the eye of law and is

liable to be dismissed.
3. That that the present application is devoid of law hence is

liable to be dismissed. The amendment application should not

be allowed where by virtue of the amendment the nature of

suit is changed or some prejudice is caused to the defendant,

as stated in Mount Mary Enterprises v. Jivratna Medi

Treat (P) Ltd, (2015) 4 SCC 182. By allowing the present

application, the court will be deciding against the view taken

in the above mentioned case by the apex court.

4. That the contents mentioned in the application are devoid of

any law and merit and hence are opposed strongly.

5. That if the present application is allowed then the nature of

the suit will be changed completely which in turn is beyond

the scope of application under order 6 rule 17 code of civil

procedure 1908. It is a well settled point that any application

filed under Order 6 Rule 17, of code of civil procedure will not

be allowed to change the very nature of the suit. Hence under

the light of above mentioned law the application does not hold

the power or are not allowed to change the very nature of the

suit hence under the light of above stated averment the

present application is liable to be dismissed.

6. That if the present application be allowed then a gross

prejudice to the defendant may occur, as deleting the

contractor from the area of party will only exhaust the cause
 of action of the plaintiff against the answering defendant as

their subsistence no cause of action against the answering

defendant and plaintiff is only dragging the defendant to the

present suit just to fleece out some money from the answering

defendant of the wrongs committed as the result of the act of

his own

7. That the present application is liable to be dismissed as the

plaintiff has failed to establish beyond doubts that despite all

due diligence the amendment could not to be incorporated at

the early stages of the suit as the contents of the Writ petition

no. 5598 of 2007 which are being filed by the plaintiff were

known to the plaintiff as being instituted by himself only. But

even the after knowing and reading the abovementioned

petition also the plaintiff choose not to incorporate the

contents of the same deliberately, this act of the plaintiff

shows that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean

hands which in turn is gross abuse of law.

8. That the prayers asked for in the present application are

wrong, incorrect and a misuse of law by the plaintiff. The

application filed by the plaintiff is devoid of facts and merit

and hence it is stated vehemently that the applicant is not

entitled to any relief.

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the application under

consideration may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of

 justice, equity, and fair play, as the present application is

nothing else but only misuse of law.

Place: Delhi Through (Defendant)

Dated: Counsel

IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABBAS, ADJ, DISTRICT

WEST, TIS-HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

C.S. NO. _______________ OF 2017

SMT. RAMESHWERI …PLAINTIFF

 VERSUS

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

THROUGH ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(WEST ZONE) OFFICE AT: EC-BLOCK,
VISHAL ENCLAVE, TAGORE GARDEN
EXTENSION, NEW DELHI …DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, am and
competent to swear this affidavit :-

1. That the organisation, being the respondent in the above

noted appeal I am well conversant with the facts of the
case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying application has been drafted at

my instance, and the contents thereof have been read over
and explained to me in vernacular, which are true and
correct as to my knowledge and the same are to be read
and treated as part of this affidavit as the same are not
being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this day of 2018 that the
contents of the appeal are true and correct as to my knowledge. No
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.

DEPONENT