1

IN THE COURT OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION

SONIPAT

M/s Gangori Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Dahiya & Ors.

Civil Suit No.CS/1588/2023

CIVIL SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 4.

R/Sir,
The answering defendants most humbly submit as under:-
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-
1. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form as per law.
The Answering defendants at the very outset respectfully submits that the
present suit is grossly unfounded, false and hence not maintainable in law and
is liable to be dismissed.
2. That the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The suit
is barred in view of various provisions of Specific Relief Act and Indian
Contract Act and other laws of the country applicable in the present matter in
controversy.
In the present case, the plaintiff wrongly alleged that the suit
property was purchased by it and the company is in the possession of the suit
property. It is submitted that the property in question not in the possession of
the plaintiff rather the same is in the possession of the answering defendants
who are doing dairy farming on the land in question after constructing sheds,
Veranda, rooms for cattle and invested huge amount on development of
infrastructure for cattle farming. They have also doing farming on the
remaining land and their wheat crop is standing on the land at present. The
defendant no.2 is having electricity connection on the land in question bearing
no.5035362000 and making the payment of electricity payment regularly. The
plaintiff company never came in possession of the land mentioned in the
plaint. It is settled law that in the suit for permanent injunction for restraining
defendant to interfere in possession only can be filed when the plaintiff is in
 2

the possession of the property on the day of filing of the suit otherwise the
suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable.
3. That the present suit is result of malafide intention of the plaintiff who wants
to dispossess the answering defendants forcibly and illegally by removing the
construction i.e. rooms, sheds and veranda constructed by the answering
defendants on the land in question and wants to disconnect the electricity
connection over there. The plaintiff company wants to damage the wheat
crops of the answering defendants with the purpose to dispossess them
forcibly and illegally.
4. That the plaintiff company claiming its possession on the basis of sale deed
no.1788 dated 11.07.2018. The sale deed in question is a void document and
has no sanctity in the eyes of law in view of Section 19 of the Indian Contract
Act. It is submitted that the sale deed no.1788 is result of malafide intention
on the part of the plaintiff company and defendants no.2 and 3 who with the
purpose to obtain loan from the plaintiff company exercised undue influence
upon the defendant no.4 and did not disclose anything to defendant no.1 and 4
who are doing dairy farming on the land in question. The defendant no.3
being husband of the defendant no.4 was in dominating position over her and
used that position in collusion with the plaintiff to obtain an unfair advantage
over her. The defendants no.2 and 3 were in a fiduciary relationship with
defendant no.4., who is a pardanasin, old aged and very simple lady not
having worldly-wise wisdom and her mental capacity was effected by
defendants no.2 and 3 at the time of execution of the sale deed no.1788 dated
11.07.2018. The plaintiff and defendants no.2 and 3 did not disclose the
contents of the sale deed to her and she was informed that the document was
created on the land of her husband only for the purpose of obtaining loan
from the plaintiff company and her consent is required for this purpose. In
this way, the sale deed was got executed by taking advantage of undue
influence and fiduciary relationship amongst defendants no.3 and 4 being
husband and wife and the sale deed is in fact result of misrepresentation at the
time of execution of sale deed no.1788. Factum, of sale deed of her only
came to the knowledge of the defendant no.4 when she received the summon
of the present case.
5. That the plaintiff is not in possession of any part of the property. He wrongly
claimed himself in possession of the suit property. In this way, the plaintiff
has not come to the court with clean hands and he has concealed the material
facts from this Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a
person coming to court with unclean hands is neither entitled to be heard on
merits nor entitled to any relief. Obligation to approach court with clean
 3

hands is an absolute obligation and a litigant who attempts to pollute the

stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted
hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. [2013 (2) SCC 398]. In this
way the plaintiff company should be estopped by its own act and conduct,
thus, it deserves no equity in its favour.
6. That no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff against the answering
defendants to file the instant suit and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file
the present suit against the answering defendants.
7. That the present suit has been filed against the answering defendants only
with the motive to harass and humiliate them and this suit is result of
fraudulent and malafide intention of the plaintiff, who is having its evil eyes
on the property of the answering defendants. The present suit is grossly
unfounded, false and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs
8. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit out of greed knowingly and
willingly on false and vexatious grounds with the malafide intention with the
purpose to make pressure upon the answering defendants as such, the plaintiff
should be burdened with heavy costs under Section 35-A of CPC, 1908 apart
from exemplary costs
REPLY ON MERIT: -
1. That the contents of para No.1 of the plaint as stated are wrong and hence
denied. The board resolution attached along with the plaint is wrong, illegal
and having no sanctity in the eyes of law. It is wrong and denied that Ashok
Kumar Singhla is director of the company and he has been duly authorized by
the other directors of the company to file the present suit. The authorization in
his favour if any is not as per law.
2. That para No.2 of the plaint as stated is vehemently wrong and hence denied.
It is wrong and denied that the plaintiff purchased the land measuring 15K-
03M from defendant nos.3 and 4 vide sale deed baring registration no.1788
dated 11.07.2018 or the plaintiff simultaneously took peaceful vacant
possession of the land. The defendant no.4 never gave consent for selling her
land measuring 08 Kanal 01 Marla in favour of Plaintiff Company nor gave
possession of her land to the plaintiff company as alleged. It came to the
knowledge of the defendant no.4 with regard to sale deed no.1788 dated
11.07.2018 when she received summons of the present case. Prior to that, she
had no knowledge about this document which is a result of misrepresentation
and fraud committed upon the defendant no.4.
3. That para No.3 of the plaint as stated is vehemently wrong and hence denied.
The defendant no.4 never gave consent for execution of mutation no.2394 to
the revenue authority for sanction of mutation of her land measuring 08 Kanal
 4

01 Marla in favour of plaintiff company on the basis of sale deed no.1788

dated 11.07.2018. As stated earlier the sale deed no.1788 never came to her
knowledge nor it is the result of free consent of the defendant no.4. The sale
deed in question is result of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence,
fiduciary relationship and result of advantage of simplicity, illiteracy, old age
of defendant no.4 who is a pardanasin lady. The mutation no.2394 was entered
in absence of defendant no.4. No notice was given to her by the revenue
authority before sanction of mutation of her land in favour of Plaintiff
Company. Revenue rules were not followed at the time of sanction of mutation
no.2394 and in this way subsequent jamabandi are illegal and have no effect
on the rights of the defendant no.4 qua her land measuring 08 Kanal 01 Marla
mentioned in the plaint.
4. That para No.4 of the plaint as stated is wrong and hence denied. The
defendants no.1 and 4 are in possession of the land mentioned in para no.2 of
the plaint who are doing dairy farming on the land in question after
constructing sheds, Veranda, rooms for cattle and invested huge amount on
development of infrastructure for cattle farming for the last more than 8 years.
They have also doing farming on the remaining land and their wheat crop is
standing on the land at present. The defendant no.1 is having electricity
connection on the land in question bearing no.5035362000 and making the
payment of electricity payment regularly. The plaintiff company never came in
possession of the land mentioned in the plaint. The CLU if any obtained by the
plaintiff company from the department of Town and Country Planning i.e. also
result of collusion, fraud and concealment of the fact from the department
5. That para No.5 of the plaint as stated is wrong and hence denied. The plaintiff
is not in possession of the land nor did the plaintiff company come in the
possession of the land in suit at any point of time. If any complaint moved by
the plaintiff company to the police those are false and result of concealment of
facts. The answering defendants were never called by the police nor do they
have any knowledge regarding any complaint. The plaintiff company has no
right to start construction over the suit land, therefore, the contents in this para
are false. It is wrong and denied that in order to start construction the plaintiff
company sent contractors and workers on the land in question.
As stated earlier the plaintiff company has no right to claim possession
on the suit land on the basis of sale deed no.1788 dated 11.07.2018. The
defendant no.4 never gave the possession of her land to the plaintiff company
and defendant no.1 and 4 are doing dairy farming on the land mentioned in
para no.2 of the suit. The true facts leading to obtaining illegal sale deed by
misrepresentation and fraud of plaintiff in collusion with defendant nos. 2 and
 5

3 and by taking advantage of simplicity, illiteracy, old age of defendant no.4

who is a pardanasin lady are as under:-
a) The defendant no.3 is in a habit of obtaining loan from bank or private
persons on the land in question and because of this reason he never
bothered about his family and never gave expenses to defendant no.4 for
household expenses. He suffered huge financial loss because of his
obtaining loan against his land. After obtaining loan against his land in
question, he always tried to invest that amount in illegal trade etc. or for
setting up a new business, but he always failed. The defendant nos.1 and 4
always raised objections against the habit of taking loan by defendant no.3
and spending that amount on wasteful expenditure, but he did not bother
about the advice of defendant nos.1 and 4. The defendant no.2 always
supported his father because he also indulged with the defendant no.3 in
wasteful expenditure by setting up new business despite having no
experience at all.
b) That the defendant no.3 obtained loan from Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal,
resident of Narela, Delhi and executed a sale deed of 08 Kanal land in Killa
No.19//11/1/2min south-west (3-12), 20//15min-south(4-9) in Khewat
No.49, Khata No.58 situated in the revenue estate of village Kheri Manajat,
out of his 138 Kanal 06 Marla land to Smt. Kusum Aggarwal wife of
Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal vide sale deed no.1061 dated 11.06.2014 as a
security/surety. The possession was not delivered to Smt. Kusum
Aggarwal. When this fact came to the knowledge of defendant nos.1 and 4
then dispute arose amongst the family members and defendant nos.1 and 4
raised objection against this act of obtaining loan by defendant no.3 at the
behest of defendant nos.2. Thereafter, in order to bring harmony in the
family, the defendant nos.1 and 4 cleared the loan and again obtained the
land mentioned above in this para from Smt. Kusum Aggarwal vide sale
deed no.37 dated 06.04.2015 in the name of defendant no.4. Since then the
defendant no.4 is in the possession of the land as owner in Killa
No.19//11/1/2/2 (3-12), 20//15/2(4-9) in Khewat No.49, Khata No.58
situated in the revenue estate of village Kheri Manajat. In view of the
family settlement the reaming land of killa no.19//11/1/2 and 20//15 i.e.
19//11/1/2/1(3-11), 20//15/1(3-11) was given to the defendant no.1 and 4
by the defendant no.3 in April/May-2015 by way of oral family settlement
for starting a dairy farming on the land mentioned in para no.2 (i) & (ii) of
the plaint.
c) The defendant nos.2 and 3 again with the purpose to start a new business
were in the need of finances. The defendant no.2 and 3, who with the
 6

purpose to obtain loan from the plaintiff company exercised undue

influence upon the defendant no.4 in collusion with plaintiff and they also
did not disclose anything to defendant no.1 who was in possession of the
land along with her mother and was doing dairy farming on the land in
question. The defendant no.3 being karta of the family and as husband of
the defendant no.4 was in dominating position over her and used that
position in collusion with the plaintiff to obtain an unfair advantage over
her. The defendants no.2 and 3 were in a fiduciary relationship to
defendant no.4. The defendant nos.2 and 3 brought defendant no.4 at
Sonepat on 11.07.2018 and asked her to thumb marked certain documents
without disclosing the consents of those documents to her. Defendant no.4
is a pardanasin, old aged and very simple lady not having worldly-wise
wisdom and her mental capacity was effected by defendants no.2 and 3 at
that time and she on the asking of plaintiff, defendant no.2 and 3 and put
her thumbed impressions on some documents under undue influence and
fiduciary relationship with them without knowing the contents of the
documents in innocent manner. These all facts were concealed by the
plaintiff, defendant nos.2 and 3 form the defendant no.1 also. In this way,
the plaintiff in collusion with defendant nos. 2 and 3 got executed the sale
deed no.1788 dated 11.07.2018 in its favour without disclosing the
contents of the sale deed to defendant no.4 and she was informed that the
document was created only for the purpose of obtaining loan from the
plaintiff company of the land of defendant no.3 only. In this way, the sale
deed was got executed by taking advantage of undue influence and
fiduciary relationship amongst defendants no.3 and 4 being husband and
wife and the sale deed is in fact result of misrepresentation at the time of
execution of sale deed no.1788 and which came to the knowledge of the
defendant nos.1 and 4 when they received the summons of the present
case.
d) The plaintiff company never came in the possession of the land nor
possession was handed over to it of the land mentioned in the para no.2 of
the plaint and the factum of handing over the possession mentioned in the
sale deed was inserted illegally and wrongly.
e) Since the year 2018 when the sale deed was executed, the plaintiff never
came on the land in question and did not ask the defendant nos.1 and 4 for
possession on the basis of alleged sale deed no.1788 dated 11.07.2018 and
first time it approached the court by way of filing the present suit by
alleging the company itself in the possession of the land in question. The
plaintiff concealed the true facts. In fact, the defendant no.1 and 5 are in
 7

the possession of the land in question and running dairy business/farming

on the land and also cultivating the land and at present they have shown
wheat crops over there.
6. That para No.6 of the plaint as stated is wrong and hence denied. The
possession of the land in question is with the defendant nos.1 and 4 and the sale
deed no.1788 dated 11.07.2018 is result of misrepresentation and fraud and has
no effect on the rights of the defendant nos.1 and 4. The defendant nos.1 and 4
are in the process of challenging the sale deed no.1788 dated 11.07.2018 in the
Hon'ble Civil Court on the grounds taken in the present written statement. The
allegations levelled in this para are false. It is the plaintiff company who
forcibly and illegally wants to take possession of the land in question and wants
to damage the wheat crops and construction raised by the answering defendants
on the suit property by way of construction of rooms, veranda, sheds for dairy
farming.
7. That para No.7 of the plaint as stated is wrong and hence denied.
8. That para No.8 of the plaint as stated is wrong and vehemently denied. In case,
the plaintiff company succeeds in obtaining any relief form the court on the
basis of false and fictitious facts, it is the answering defendants who will suffer
an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any manner.
9. That para No.9 of the plaint as stated is denied for want of knowledge.
10. That para no.10 of the plaint as stated is wrong and hence denied. The present
suit is result of malafide intention on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff
company has no claim in the property in question mentioned in the plaint. No
cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff company against the
answering defendants. The cause of action is fictitious and without any basis.
11. That para No.11 of the plaint as stated is legal.
12. That para no.9 of the plaint as stated is wrong and denied. No proper court fee
has been affixed. The plaintiff company is not in the possession of the land in
question.
Last para of the plaint is prayer clause, which is wrong and denied. The
plaintiff company is not in possession of the land and also has no right, title or
concern with the land in question thus, not entitled for any decree for permanent
injunction as mentioned in this para against the answering defendants on the basis
of the submissions mentioned above.
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly
be dismissed with heavy costs against the answering defendants, in the interest of
justice.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, may
also kindly be awarded in favour of the answering defendants.
 8

Verification: - Defendants No.1 & 4

Verified that the contents of para Nos.1 to 8 1. Rakesh Dahiya son of Sh. Jai Pal
of preliminary objections are correct and 2. Smt. Sushila wife of Sh. Jai Pal,
true to the best of our knowledge and belief; both residents of village Kheri
and paras No.1 to 8 are true and correct to Manajat, Tehsil and District
the best of our knowledge and para no.9 & Sonepat.
12 are correct as per our belief. Last para is
reply of prayer clause.
Verified at Sonepat
Dated:
Through : Counsel

IN THE COURT OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION

SONIPAT

M/s Gangori Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Dahiya & Ors.
---
Civil Suit No.CS/1588/2023
 9

Civil suit for permanent injunction

Reply to the application U/O 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC

R/Sir,
The answering defendants no. 1 and 4 humbly submit as under:-
1. That para No.1 of the application is wrong and denied. It is wrong that the
suit of the plaintiff is likely to succeed; rather the same is most likely to be
dismissed on the grounds mentioned in the written statement, which may
kindly be read as part of this reply.
2. That para No.2 of the application as stated is wrong and hence denied.
The plaintiff company filed the present suit based on false and frivolous
grounds and detailed submissions have already been given at the time of
giving reply of the plaint. It is wrong and denied that the plaintiff
company is in possession of the suit land and the answering defendants
have threatened to cause obstruction and nuisance in the usage of suit land
or dispossess it from the suit land. The defendant no.4 is in possession of
the suit land being its owner and has every right to use the same in the
manner she like. All the facts mentioned in this para are wrong and denied
and concocted with malafide intention because of the reasons mentioned
in the written statement.
The plaintiff company has no right to claim possession on the suit
land on the basis of sale deed no.1788 dated 11.07.2018. The defendant
no.4 never gave the possession of her land to the plaintiff company and
defendant no.1 and 4 are doing dairy farming on the land mentioned in
para no.2 of the suit. The answering defendant on the basis of submissions
made in written statement have every right to use and enjoy their
property/land and they have every right to use the same as they like. The
plaintiff has no right, title or concern in the suit land in any manner. It is
also wrong and denied that the answering defendant threatened the
plaintiff in any manner. The plaintiff is not going to suffer any irreparable
loss or injury as alleged. In case, the plaintiff company succeeds in
obtaining any relief form the court on the basis of false and fictitious facts,
it is the answering defendants who will suffer an irreparable loss and
injury which cannot be compensated in any manner.
3. That para No.3 of the plaint as stated is wrong and denied. There is no
prima facie case or balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff
company, rather the same is in favour of the answering defendants.
 10

The contents of prayer clause of the application are wrong and

vehemently denied. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of ad-interim
injunction as prayed in the present application. On the basis of the
submissions made in the present reply and the written statement of the plaint,
the plaintiff company is not entitled for relief of ad-interim injunction as it is
not in the possession of the property of the answering defendants or relief of
ad-interim injunction of alienation of suit land mentioned in the plaint owned
and possessed by the answering defendants. On the basis of the submission in
the present reply of the application and written statement, the present
application filed by him is liable to be dismissed, in the interest of justice.

Verification: Defendants No.1 & 4

Verified that the contents of 1. Rakesh Dahiya son of Sh. Jai

above paras of the reply of application
are true and correct to the best of our
knowledge and belief and last para is a
prayer to this Hon’ble Court.
Verified at Sonepat
Dated:
Pal 2. Smt. Sushila wife of Sh. Jai
Pal, both residents of village
Kheri Manajat, Tehsil and District
Sonepat.

Through counsel