IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS LD.

ADJ DWK COURT SOUTH WEST

DELHI.
CS DJ 990/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. RAMAKANT SAH & ANRs …………………………………PLAINTIFFS
V/S
SH. ANURAG MANI TIWARI ………………………………….DEFENDANT
REPLY ON BEHALF OF DECEE HOLDER/ PLAINTIFF TO THE
APPLICATION U/O 9 RULE 13 CPC.
Most respect fully submitted:
PRILIMINARY OBJECTIONS: -
1. That the application filed by the applicant is totally based on fake
and false story under dilatory tactics to waste the valuable time of
the court and to defeat the legitimate and un defendable claim of
the plaintiff.

2. That the application of the defendant is bared by limitation and the

same is not maintainable without condonation of delay and liable
to reject with heavy cost on this ground alone.

3. That the defendant just to abuse to refuse the service of court

process for passing decree and judgment in the above said titled
suit hence the application of the applicant/defendant is liable to
reject with subject to heavy cost.

4. That the applicant is not appearing before the Hon’ble court with
clean hand and the another hand, the application of the applicant
is very much bad by provision which not maintainable under the
plea of defendant for setting aside to the decree and judgment of
summary suit passed by the court hence the same is liable to reject
with heave cost on this ground alone.

5. That the defendant does not has cogent ground except challenging
to the service of court process and the same is not sufficient for
 setting a side to the decree/judgment passed by the Hon’ble court,
hence the application of the applicant is not deserving to set aside
the decree of this suit and the same is liable to reject with heavy
cost.

6. That the applicant received a sum Rs.4 Lacs from the plaintiffs on
27/07/2018 having offered to sell a piece of residential land
mentioned in agreement to sell after considering full and final sale
consideration of Rs.6 Lacs, as admitted by defendant in para No.10
of his application.

7. That later on applicant turned dishonest after increasing rate of the

above said piece of land in sky touch and handed over the cheques
in question easily as per terms of agreement to sell after refusing
to sell the piece of land, now the applicant has nothing remain to
adopt delaying tactics of the court proceeding and grabbing the suit
amount, hence the application of the applicant is liable to reject
with exemplary cost.

8. That on the account of aforesaid facts and circumstances, plea of

irreparable loss and injuries of the applicant are not maintainable
and liable to reject with heavy cost as per terms of Pawan kr Nath
V/S Yashita Mukhi dt.17/01/2022, Bombay High court.

REPLY ON MERITS: -

9. That contents of paras No.1 is/are matter of record hence need no

reply.

10.That the contents of paras No.2 true and admitted but it is

specifically denied that the plaintiff is not appearing with clean
hand before the Hon’ble court.

11.That the contents of paras No.3 is/are false, baseless hence denied,
and further it is submitted that the defendant just to abuse the
servicing of court process by way challenging the same, while the
same is not sufficient for setting aside, the decree and judgment of
 this case, thus the application of the applicant is liable to reject with
heavy cost on this ground alone.

12.That the contents of paras No.4, 5 & 6 is/are true and admitted, and
it is specifically denied that the applicant came to know about the
present suit during the session of mediation proceeding, and it is
submitted that the applicant has availed the cheques in question to
the plaintiffs by filling all the particulars of the cheques with his own
hand, except date which was/were filled by plaintiffs on instruction
of the applicant accordingly his convenient.

13. That the contents of paras No.7 is are baseless, false and vague
hence denied and further submitted that the defendant is
appearing criminal and civil court after receiving of the court
process and misguiding to the court with his false and missionary
stands, the same is not maintainable and liable to reject with heavy
cost.

14.That the contents of paras No.8 & 9 is/are baseless, false and vague
hence denied and further it is submitted that the defendant is
dishonestly received the saving of plaintiff after giving them a false
dream of their own house.

15.That the contents of paras No.10 are true but the same has been
stated wrongly, the truth of the same averment of the defendant is
as that the defendant offered the alleged property for sale in full
and final sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/ and out of that received
a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ and later on refused to sale the same by
handing over the cheques in question due to increasing the value
of the property with high speed as proudly appreciated hereby
defendant.

16.That the contents of paras No.11 to 13 is/are false, imaginary and

baseless hence all the averment of the said paras of defendant
is/are denied under reply and further it is submitted that the formal
imaginary statements are not deserving to set aside of the decree
 and judgment passed by the Hon’ble court in above said titled
money recovery suit.

17.That the contents of paras No.14 & 15 are false and vague hence
denied and further it is submitted that the present application of
the defendant is barred by limitation and the same is not
maintainable without condonation of delay, but the same liable to
reject with heavy cost.

In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances liability of

defendant remain undisputed hence prayer paras of the present
application is/are not maintainable and liable to reject with
direction to make payment of the decretal amount to the plaintiffs
before considering the application of the applicant/defendant.

NEW DELHI THROUGH PLAINTIFFS

DATE:10/10/2023 COUNSEL

VERIFICATION: -
It is verified in Delhi on this 10th day of October 2023, that the
contents of the present reply is/are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief, and there is/are nothing remain to
conceal therefrom.

PLAINTIFFS