IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION

NEW DELHI

SUIT NO. OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. MR. SOMESH GUPTA

S/O MR RAHUL GUPTA
R/O NEW DELHI
…. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
2. MR ADITYA TIWARI
S/O GAURAV TIWARI
R/0 NEW DELHI
….. DEFENDANT

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1. That the suit is barred by limitation under section 5 of the limitation Act and is
liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone.

2. That the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and
jurisdiction and is therefore liable to reject out rightly.

3. That there is absolutely no cause of action in favor of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant. The suit is therefore liable to be rejected on this ground also.

4. That the suit has not been properly verified in accordance with law.

5. That the suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff company is not registered
under section 69 of the Indian Partnership act and such is not competent to
institute this suit.

ON MERITS:
Without prejudice to the preliminary objections stated above, the reply on merits, which is
without prejudice to one another, is as under –

1) That para 1 of the plaint is not admitted as stated only this much is admitted that he is
the owner of transport but there is knowledge that the registered office is in Delhi

2) That the contents of para 2 of the plaint are correct and admitted.

3) That the contents of the para 3 are not admitted, there was no set terms or condition to
make payment at Mumbai and it is always the responsibility of the transportation
company to take money before transportation.

4) That the contents of the para 4 of the plaint is not admitted as the goods received by C
V Prasad were in damaged condition.

5) That the contents of para 5 of the plaint are correct and admitted.

6) That the contents of para 6 are not admissible as Aditya Tiwari was not contacted.

7) That the contents of para 7 are not admitted.

8) That the contents of para 8 are not admitted.

9) That the contents of para 9 are not admitted as no notice was received by the
defendant.

10) That the contents of para 10 are not admitted as there was no contract to make the
payment at 10% and it is also a very high rate.

11) That the contents of para 11,12,13,14,15, are legal and does not apply at this stage.

12) That the plaintiff is not entitled for relief and the suit is to be dismissed and the
defendant should be compensated.

PRAYER:

It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to:

a) Dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.

b) Award costs to the defendant.
c) Pass any other just and equitable order as deemed to fit in the interest of justice.
 Mr. Aditya Tiwari

Place: New Delhi Through

Date: Phool Chand Tripathi

VERIFICATION

Verification at New Delhi on…… that the content of paras 1 to 8 of replay on merits are true
to my personal knowledge and those paras 9 to 11 reply on merits are true and correct on the
basis of legal advice received and believed to be true. Last para is para to the Hon’ble court.

Mr. Aditya Tiwari