In the City Civil Court, at Gorakhpur

Civil Suit No. 100 of 2000

Rainikant Ramprasad Pandya, s/o Shashikant Pandya,

r/o 0323 D Chaksha Hussain Gorakhnath Gorakhpur aged 40 years …Plaintiff

Versus

Ramanbhai Mohanbhai Patel, s/o Kamalbhai Patel,

r/o 410 E Chaksha Hussain Gorakhnath Gorakhpur aged 42 years …Defendant

SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

The plaintiff abovenamed humbly states as under:

1. That by an agreement in writing, dated 1 January 2001, signed by the defendant, the
defendant contracted to sell to the plaintiff his bungalow referred to in the said agreement
(hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) for Rs 10,00,000. An amount of Rs
l,00,000 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as earnest money at the time of
agreement.
2. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and on 1 June
2001, he tendered Rs 9,00,000 the balance of consideration to the defendant and called
upon him to execute a sale deed, but the defendant refused to do so.
3. The plaintiff has always been and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract by paying the balance of purchase price to the defendant.
4. The cause of action for the suit arose on 1 January 2001 when the defendant executed the
agreement to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and On 1 June 2001, when the plaintiff
tendered the balance amount to the defendant and showed his readiness and willingness
to perform his part of the contract but the defendant refused to execute the sale deed and
thereby failed to perform his part of the contract.
 5. The cause of action arose in Gorakhpur because the agreement was made in Gorakhpur,
the suit property is situated in Gorakhpur and the defendant also resides in Gorakhpur
within the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has, therefore, jurisdiction to try this
suit.
6. The value of the subject matter of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction as well as Court
fees is Rs 10,00,000.

7. The plaintiff, therefore, prays:

a. that the defendant may be ordered to transfer the suit Property by executing a sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff;
b. that in the alternative, the defendant may be ordered to refund to the plaintiff the
amount of Rs 1,00,000 paid as earnest money and also to pay Rs 9,00,000 as
damages for committing breach of the contract;
c. that the defendant may be ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of this suit;
d. that such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require may also be
granted.

Mohd Yusuf Rainikant Ramprasad Pandya

Plaintiff's Advocate Plaintiff

Verification

I, Rajnikant Ramprasad Pandya, the plaintiff abovenamed do solemnly declare that what is stated
in paras 1 to 4 is true to my knowledge and that what is stated in the remaining paras is stated on
the information received by me and I believe it to be true.

Rainikant Ramprasad Pandya

Plaintiff

In the City Civil Court, at Gorakhpur

 Civil Suit No. 100 of 2000

Rainikant Ramprasad Pandya, s/o Shashikant Pandya,

r/o 0323 D Chaksha Hussain Gorakhnath Gorakhpur aged 40 years …Plaintiff

Versus

Ramanbhai Mohanbhai Patel, s/o Kamalbhai Patel,

r/o 410 E Chaksha Hussain Gorakhnath Gorakhpur aged 42 years …Defendant

SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

The written statement on behalf of the defendant abovenamed:

1. The defendant denies that he entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the
plaintiff on 1 January 2001 or on any other date and that the plaintiff paid Rs l,00,000 or
any other amount to him as earnest money as alleged in para 1 of the plaint.
2. The defendant denies that on 1 June 2001 or on any other date, the plaintiff tendered Rs
9,00,000 or any other amount to him and called upon him to execute the sale deed as
alleged in para 2 of the plaint. The defendant says that since it is not true that he executed
any agreement to sell the suit property to the plaintiff, the question of the plaintiff
tendering the balance of consideration and the plaintiff being ready and willing to
perform his part of the alleged contract did not arise at all and the whole story is got up
and false.
3. The defendant says that in view of what is stated above, the plaintiff has no cause of
action to file the suit against him.
4. The defendant, therefore, submits that the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs
claimed by him in the plaint and the suit filed by him be dismissed with costs.
Sunil Srivastava Ramanbhai Mohanbhai
Patel

Defendants’s Advocate
Defendant

Verification

I, Ramanbhai Mohanbhai Patel, the defendant abovenamed do solemnly declare that what is
stated in paras 1 and 2 is true to my knowledge and that what is stated in the remaining paras is
stated on the information received by me and I believe it to be true.

Ramanbhai Mohanbhai Patel

Defendant