MODEL DRAFT FOR WRITTEN STATEMENT

MODEL DRAFT FOR WRITTEN STATEMENT

IN THE COURT OF SHRI ………………
CIVIL JUDGE (DISTRICT ________), DELHI
SUIT NO. …………………… OF 20

X_______________

…. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
Y_________________

….. DEFENDANT

 

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

  1. That the suit is barred by limitation under Article ………. of the Limitation Act, 1963, and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
  2. That this Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit because…………………
  3. That the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, rendering it liable to outright rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”).
  4. That the Plaintiff has no cause of action against the Defendant. The suit is therefore liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC.
  5. That the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely ……………………..
  6. That the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties, particularly with respect to Z, who has no role in the alleged dispute.
  7. That the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC as the matter has already been adjudicated in Suit No……………. titled Y versus X by the Court of Sh. ………………………, Sub-Judge, Delhi.
  8. That the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC, as a previously instituted suit between the parties bearing No……………… is pending in the Court of Sh. ………………….., Sub-Judge, Delhi.
  9. That the suit has not been verified in accordance with the mandatory requirements under Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC.
  10. That the Plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction is barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, since a more efficacious remedy is available. The Plaintiff should have sought specific performance instead.
  11. That the Plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction is also barred under Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the Plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and has been guilty of material non-disclosure.
  12. That the Plaintiff’s claim for declaration is barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the Plaintiff has failed to seek consequential relief, thereby rendering the suit unsustainable.
  13. That the suit is barred under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as contracts involving personal service cannot be enforced.
  14. That the suit is liable to dismissal for non-compliance with mandatory notice requirements under Section 80 of the CPC, Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, or Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, as applicable.
  15. That the Plaintiff lacks locus standi as the firm is unregistered under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and therefore cannot maintain this suit.
  16. That the suit is barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and is liable to dismissal outrightly.

ON MERITS:

Without prejudice to the preliminary objections stated above, the Defendant submits as follows:

  1. That paragraph 1 of the plaint is correct and is admitted.
  2. That paragraph 2 of the plaint is denied for want of knowledge. The Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the allegations therein.
  3. That the contents of paragraph 3 of the plaint are absolutely incorrect and denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The property is owned by Mr. N as per legal records.
  4. That with respect to paragraph 4, while it is correct that the Defendant is in possession of the suit property, the remaining averments are denied. It is specifically denied that………………….
  5. That paragraphs 5 to 10 are denied as false. The Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the allegations therein.
  6. That paragraph 11 is incorrect. There is no cause of action in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant because…………………..
  7. That paragraph 21 is incorrect and denied. This Hon’ble Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the value of the suit property exceeds its jurisdiction.
  8. That paragraph 13 is incorrect. The suit has been incorrectly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. The correct valuation as per the Defendant is Rs………………..

PRAYER:

In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a) Dismiss the suit of the Plaintiff with costs;
b) Award costs of litigation to the Defendant;
c) Pass any other just and equitable order as deemed fit in the interest of justice.

DEFENDANT
Delhi
THROUGH
Dated:
ADVOCATE

VERIFICATION:

I, the Defendant, do hereby verify at Delhi on this … day of … 20__, that the contents of paragraphs 1 to …. of the Preliminary Objections and paragraphs …. to …. of the Reply on Merits are true to my personal knowledge, and the contents of paragraphs …. to …. of the Preliminary Objections and paragraphs …. to …. of the Reply on Merits are true based on legal advice which I believe to be true. The last paragraph is a prayer to this Hon’ble Court.

DEFENDANT

[NOTE: Counterclaims or set-offs, if any, must be explicitly stated and verified in accordance with Order VIII of the CPC.]

Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture