BEFORE THE COURT OF HONLBE XIII CIVIL JUDGE CLASS II

RAIPUR (C.G)

Smt. Anita Paul ......Plaintiff

VERSUS

Shri Suresh Kumar Mirghani .... Defendant

Case no:

Reply of Application under order 39 (1 & 2) of Civil Procedure Code on

behalf of Defendant.

That, the instant Application seeking injunction has been filed by Plaintiff to take undue
advantage of the mistake done by some counsel in Paper public publication/Public notice, which
is being misused by the Plaintiff to force the void agreement on the Defendant. That, in reality
the fair market value of the property in suit is more than 1 crore 50 Lacs, as the property is
located in posh locality, named Devendra Nagar and is fully furnished. That, the Defandant
denies the content of paper publication dated 18/6/2021, which is also the cause of action in the
instant suit.

That, the instant suit has been filed by the Plaintiff to obtain the decree by misleading the
Hon’ble Court and misuse the same to enforce the same by virtue of Specific relief act. That, the
agreement dated 15/6/2021 is Void ab initio, as the same has been executed by undue influence,
force and misrepresentation. That, the husband of the Plaintiff was an Advocate of the Defendant
and was in fiduciary relation for almost more than 15 years and he used his undue influence on
Defendant and violated the pious Attorney-Client Privilege to usurp the valuable property of
Defendant out of greed. That, husband of Plaintiff was in possession of various valuable
documents and other instruments of the Defendant and he misused the same to get the instant
agreement in the suit to be executed in favour of Plaintiff.

Defendant denies each and every paragraph of the Application under reply except whatever has
been specifically admitted and the paragraph wise reply is as follow:-

1. Reply as to Para 1: Content of paragraph 1 is admitted to the extent of the details of the
property. It is pertinent to mention herein that the alleged agreement is void as the same
has been executed by undue influence by virtue of fiduciary relationship and coercion by
violation of pious Advocate-client privilege, therein the Plaintiff was unjust fully
dominated the will of the defendant and the fair valuation of the property is more than
one crore fifty Lacs.
2. Reply as to Para 2: It is categorically denied that there was contract of any nature on
21/2/14 otherwise the Plaintiff would not have remained silent for almost seven years
being aware of the fact that contact can only be enforced within three years. In fact the
husband of the Plaintiff was a permanent counsel of Non-Plaintiff and wanted to invest
money in the firm of Defendant, due to this reason only they have failed to provide the
details of the account in which they transferred the money, in the plaint. That, the
defendant owns a renowned construction Company in town and the husband of Plaintiff
had availed various services of the defendant and also procured goods from the defendant
for which he reserves the right to recover money from him and when he found that the
defendant is in bad financial shape due to crisis arising out of pandemic, he forced the
defendant to execute a agreement and took the signature of Defendant though it was not
signed by the Plaintiff and no witnesses were present at time of execution. The alleged
agreement is not notarised because the Plaintiff was not present at the time of execution
and the signature of defendant were taken by undue influence arising out of fiduciary
relationship, therein the husband of Plaintiff was in possession of the documents and
instruments of defendant and was in position to dominate him. It is also relevant to
mention that fair market value of the property in the locality is more than 1.5 crore Rs
therefore it is highly improbable that anyone would agree to sell the property of crores for
seventy one Lacs.

3. Reply as to Para 3: That, it is specifically denied that the consideration alleged in the
Application was given for the property under suit as the same was deposited in the
account of firm owned by the Defendant and the agreement dated 15/6/2021 was after
thought and executed by undue influence and the fair value of property under suit is more
than 1crore fifty lacs.

4. Reply as to Para 4: Contents of this para are admitted to the extent of fiduciary
relationship between the husband of Plaintiff and Non Plaintiff. It is important to mention
here that the Defendant used to trust the husband of Plaintiff in all his matters and
preferred to keep the instruments with him.

5. Reply as to Para 5 & 6: Content of this paragraph are in furtherance of concocted story
of Plaintiff, if the concocted story of Plaintiff is deemed to be true on its face value then
she would have filed complaint in the year 2014 to the authorities or filed a Civil suit as
her husband is a leading Advocate of Raipur, when she came to learn that the property
was mortgaged. In the year 2014 and 2015 there was no oral or written contract between
the parties against the property in suit.

6. Reply as to Para 7: Contents of this para are specifically denied being concocted except
the fact that the property was released by the Bank. Defendant being the absolute owner
of property had the right to mortgage the property and get it released, the content of this
paragraph are concocted to complete the fabricated story of Plaintiff on being misguided
to obtain the property worth crores for small amount of money.

7. Reply as to Para 8: Contents of this paragraph are admitted to the factual correctness of
the agreement but it is important to mention herein that the agreement was executed via
undue influence to obtain the property worth crores of rupees for seventy one lacs by
fabricating a concocted story.

8. Reply as to Para 9: It is specifically denied that there was an oral agreement in the year
2014 and the agreement dated 15/6/2021 was imposed on the Defendant by undue
influence and misrepresentation.
9. Reply as to Para 10: Content of this para is admitted but the Defendant has come to
learn about this factual/typographical mistake from the Application filed by the Plaintiff
in the instant petition. That, on due enquiry, Defendant has come to learn that the
agreement, on which the Plaintiff’s husband took signature of Defendant was for House
no. D 15/4 and the property and client on whose behalf shri Manoj Agrawal advocate had
published the notice was for D 14. It is respectfully submitted that typographical error is
the cause of action in the instant suit but the Plaintiff want to take advantage of the
typographical error to obtain the injunctive relief and utilise the same for specific
performance though she is fully known that the agreement date 15/6/2021 was void. That,
the defendant has already directed his counsel to send a notice to Adv Shri Manoj
Agrawal to rectify the same in the intrest of justice.

10. Reply as to Para 11: That, Defendant has come to learn about these facts from the plaint
of Plaintiff and denies any conversation held with the Plaintiff, in fact her husband is
liable to pay lacs of Rupees for the services and goods procured from the defendant.

11. Reply as to Para 12: That, the agreement is void as the same was executed by undue
influence and coercion and the Defendant is ready to return the amount of 2800000
received from the Plaintiff in his firm for investment along with interest but he is also
entitled to receive more twenty five lacs rupees for services availed by the husband of the
Applicant.

12. Reply as to Para 13 and unnumbered Paragraph: - That, Defendant is a victim of the
trap created by the Plaintiff’s husband using his enriched position and legal knowledge
and therefore she is not entitled for any kind of relief from this Hon’ble Court. That, the
instant Application has been filed by the Plaintiff to take advantage of the wrong done by
her husband and does not deserve any injunctive relief on the following grounds:-

1) There is no Prima facie case:- That, the cause of action in the instant
application is one typographical error thereby House no D15 was mentioned
in place of D14 in paper publication of another property and the same shall be
rectified as the Defendant has already notified the Advocate, who had
published the public notice and also the instant agreement is void since it was
executed without the free will of non-Plaintiff and based on the facts
mentioned in the preceding paragraphs no Prima facie case is made in favour
of the Plaintiff.

2) There is no irreparable loss to the Plaintiff: - That, the suit of Plaintiff is

based on fabricated concocted story and she can be adequately compensated
in terms of money as the Defendant is ready to refund the money invested by
her husband in his firm for investment purposes.

3) There is no Balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff:- There is no

balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff as her entire story is
fabricated and concocted, which is evident from the following facts:

1. Husband of Plaintiff is a leading Advocate despite that she and her

husband gave consideration to the Defendant without any
agreement in the year 2014.

2. No Suit/Complaint was filed between the years 2014-2017,

although Plaintiff was aware about the limitation period of
enforcing agreement.
 3. Consideration was deposited in the partnership firm of defendant.

4. When Plaintiff came to learn about the mortgage of the suit

property in the year 2015 she did not filed any complaint against
the Defendant.

5. Agreement is not notarized as witnesses and Plaintiff were not

present at the time of execution and the husband of Plaintiff took
the signature of Defendant by using his dominant position in
fiduciary relationship being an Advocate.

6. That, the fair value of the property in suit is more than one crore
fifty lacs and the Applicant and her husband is trying to obtain the
same for seventy one lacs using vexatious litigation.

The real story is that the husband of Plaintiff being an Advocate of

the Defendant was always interested in the various properties and
business of Applicant against the professional ethic and forcibly
deposited the money in the account of firm owned by the
Defendant to to earn intrest and always induced the Defendant to
deliver his valuable properties for throw away prices. Husband of
the Plaintiff, got the first floor of his house constructed by the
Defendant, cost of which was more than 16Lac and also procured
Car of Rupees 8-9Lacs from the Defendant without paying any
consideration and also took lacs of Rupees as interest from the
defendant. That, during the pandemic period financial health of the
Non-Plaintiff became weak and he delivered his instruments to the
husband of Plaintiff for emergency purposes, who in turned used
them to get the instant agreement executed in his favour and obtain
the property of almost two crore Rupees for seventy one lacs.

13. That, the defendant craves the liberty of this Hon’ble Court to submit the detailed reply
and produce documents.

Prayer

That, based on the aforementioned facts, Defendant humbly prays to this hon’ble court to
dismiss the application file by the Plaintiff under order 39 rule 1 and 2 in the intrest of
justice.

Place: Raipur

Date: 9/8/2021 DEFANDANT

Advocate for Defendant