DR.

SHAKUNTALA MISRA NATIONAL

REHABILITATION UNIVERSITY
LUCKNOW

Academic Session: 2021-2022

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE,1908

TOPIC: PLAINT & WRITTEN STATEMENT

SUBMITTED BY SUBMITTED TO
ANVESHA CHATURVEDI DR. VIJETA DUA
B.COM. LL.B.(HONS.) ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
V SEMESTER FACULTY OF LAW
DR. SHAKUNTALA MISRA
NATIONAL REHABILITATION
UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In preparation of my assignment, I had to take the help and guidance of some

respected persons, who deserve my deepest gratitude. As the completion of this
assignment gave me much pleasure, I would like to show my gratitude DR.
VIJETA DUA Ma’am giving me a good guideline for assignment throughout
numerous consultations. I would also like to expand my gratitude to all those
who have directly and indirectly guided me in writing this assignment.
 In the court of the Junior Civil Judge of Lucknow

O.S. No. 2345/2021

Mr. Ram Naresh Dayal

S/o: - Krishna Dayal, Aged 50 years,

Occupation: - Business

R/o.: - Kapurthala, Lucknow ……...Plaintiff

Versus

Mr. Niya Ram Mishra

S/o: - Mr. Rajiv Mishra, Aged 55 years

Occupation: - Service

R/o: - Jankipuram, Lucknow ………. Defendant

PLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 26 READ WITH ORDER VII OF CPC

I) DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS:

The address for service of all notices and summons of process to the above named

Plaintiff is that of his Counsel Mr. Mihir Mishra, Lucknow

II) DESCRIPTION OF THE DEFENDANTS:

The address for services of all summons, notices and process on the defendants is as
stated above in ‘Cause Title’.

III) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. That the plaintiff is a money-lender and has been carrying on the business of money
lending in Lucknow city, Lucknow, the defendant is serving as a clerk in ‘Mathur’s&
Sons Pvt. Ltd. The Plaintiff knows the defendant for the last several years.
2. That the defendant on or about the 15th of august, 2020 approached the plaintiff for a
sum of Rs. 15000 which sum the defendant then needed for the purchase of a plot of
land in the suburbs of the city. The plaintiff agreed to lend and advance the said sum,
at an interest of per cent annum to the defendant.
3. That the plaintiff lent and advance the said amount of Rs. 15000 to the defendant on
or about the 15th day of August 2018, and the defendant on the same day as and in
way of collateral security executed a promissory note for the said amount of Rs.
15000 at an interest of 12 per cent per annum in favour of the plaintiff. A copy of the
said promissory note is annexed hereto and is marked as ‘Exhibit A’ to the plaint.
4. That the plaintiff several times demanded the repayment of the said amount of Rs.
15000 together with the interest from the defendant but the defendant failed to repay
the said amount together with the interest on one pretext or the other.
5. That the plaintiff finally called upon the defendant through his advocate’s letter dated
8 April,2021 for the repayment of Rs. 21000 (Rs. 15000 the principal sum and Rs.
6000 Interest thereon at 12 percent per annum from 15.08.2018), but the defendant
failed and neglected to return the said amount to the plaintiff and moreover he did not
reply the plaintiff’s advocate’s said letter. A copy of the said letter is annexed hereto
and is marked as ‘Exhibit B’ to the plaint.
6. That the plaintiff submits that the said amount of Rs. 15,000 was lent and advanced
by the plaintiff to the defendant at Lucknow, where the defendant executed the
 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, and the amount of Rs.21000 (Rs. 15000, the
principal sum and Rs. 6000 interest thereon) is due and payable by the defendant to
the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant reside in Lucknow and the defendant
usually work for gain at Lucknow; thus, the whole cause of action has arisen within
the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and, therefore, this court has got jurisdiction to
try and entertain this suit.
7. That the plaintiff values the suit at Rs. 21000 for the purposes of jurisdiction and the
Court fees.
8. Prayer:
The Plaintiff therefore prays that:
(a) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree of Rs. 21000 (Rs. 1500 the
principal sum and Rs. 6000 interest thereon) against the defendant and in favour of the
plaintiff.
(b) The defendant be ordered to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the
decretal amount from the day of the institution of the suit until the satisfaction of the
decretal amount.
(c) The defendant may be ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF

Mr. Naresh Mr. Ram Naresh

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Ram Naresh, son of Krishna Dayal, the abovenamed plaintiff, do hereby declare and
state that the contents of paras 1 to 5 of the Plaint are true to my own knowledge and the
contents of remaining paras of the plaint are based on information received from my advocate
and I believe the same to be true. Solemnly affirmed as aforesaid at Lucknow. This 15th day
of May, 2021 Interpreted and Identified by the
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF

Mr. Naresh Mr. Ram Naresh

List of Documents

1. EXHIBIT ‘A’
2. EXHIBIT ‘B’
 IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION, LUCKNOW

O.S. 2345/2021

Mr. Ram Naresh Dayal

S/o: - Krishna Dayal, Aged 50 years

Occupation: Business

R/o: - Kapurthala, Lucknow …………Plaintiff

VERSUS

Mr. Niya Ram Mishra

S/o: - Rajiv Mishra, Aged 55 years

Occupation: Service

R/o: - Jankipuram, Lucknow …………Defendant

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT:

1. With reference to the contents of para 1 of the plaint, the defendant admits that the plaintiff
is a money-lender, and has been carrying on the business of money- lending; but the
defendant denies that the plaintiff has got any licence for the business of money lending.
The defendant puts the plaintiff to the strict proof that the plaintiff has got money-lending-
licence. The rest of the contents of para 1 of the plaint are correct and admitted by the
defendant.
2. With reference to the contents of para 2 of the plaint, the defendant denies that he
approached the plaintiff on or about the 15th day of May 2020 or on any other date earlier
or later for a sum of Rs. 15000 or any part thereof as alleged in the plaint. The defendant,
further, denies that he ever needed a sum of Rs. 15,000 or any part thereof for the purchases
of a plot of land in the suburbs of the city. Further, the defendant denies that the plaintiff
ever agreed to lend and advance a sum of Rs. 15,000 or any part thereof at an interest of 12
per cent per annum to the defendant as alleged in the plaint
3. With reference to the contents of para 3 of the plaint, the defendant denies that the plaintiff
has, actually lent and advanced the said amount of Rs. 15,000 or any part thereof to the
defendant on or about the 15th day of May 2020, or on any other subsequent date. The
defendant, further, denies that he executed a promissory-note and/ or pronote and/or receipt
for the said amount of Rs. 15000 or any part thereof at an interest of 12 per cent in favour
of the plaintiff on or about the 15th day of May 2020 or on any subsequent date. The
defendant submits that he took a friendly loan of Rs. 500 (Five hundred) only from the
plaintiff in the year 1982 and for the repayment of the said amount the plaintiff obtained the
signature of the defendant on a blank piece of paper which has maliciously and dishonestly
been converted into promissory note of Rs. 15000 by the plaintiff. The defendant submits
that the friendly loan of Rs. 500 has already been returned to the plaintiff during the year
1982. The defendant further submits that while the defendant was returning the said amount
of Rs. 500 to the plaintiff he demanded of and from the plaintiff to return the defendant's
signature taken on a blank piece of paper, the plaintiff stated that he was not aware of any
such signature, and if at all, was not in the custody and possession of the plaintiff.
4. The defendant denies the contents of para 4 of the plaint The defendant says that the
defendant is neither liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount of Rs. 15000 and interest thereon
nor any part thereof. The question that the defendant failed to return the amount of Rs.
15,000 and its interest to the plaintiff on one pretext or the other does not arise.
5. With reference to para 5 of the plaint, the defendant denies the contents thereof and says
that the plaintiff advocate's letter dated April 15, 2021 has been replied by the defendant
through his advocate's letter dated April 25, 2021; and a copy of the said letter is annexed
hereto and is marked as "Exhibit A" to the written statement.
6. With reference to para 6 of the plaint, the defendant denies that the plaintiff lent and
advanced the said amount of Rs. 15000 or any part thereof to the defendant at Lucknow or
at any other place and the defendant executed a promissory note and/or receipt thereof in
favour of the plaintiff at Lucknow or at any other place or places. The defendant, further,
denies that the amount of Rs. 21000 (Rs. 15000 the principal amount and Rs. 6000 interest
thereon) or any part thereof is due and payable by (he defendant to the plaintiff.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the defendant submits that no cause of action has accrued to
the plaintiff against the defendant; and thus, the plaintiff suit is false, frivolous and
unfounded and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Written Statement drawn by

Mr. Prakash Mr. Niya Ram Mishra

Counsel of the Defendant Defendant

VERIFICATION
I, Mr. Niya Ram Mishra, son of Mr. Rajiv Mishra, the abovenamed defendant to hereby
solemnly state and declare that the contents of paras 1 to 7 of the written statement are true to
my own knowledge. Solemnly affirmed as aforesaid at Lucknow. This 15th May of 2021
interpreted and identified by me.

Mr. Prakash Mr. Niya Ram Mishra

Counsel of the defendant Defendant

List of Document
EXHIBIT ‘A’