IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG, LD.

CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZRI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ. 2053/2022
In Re:
Saroj ……Plaintiff

Vs
Delhi Jal Board & Ors. ……Defendants
INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. Written Statement on behalf of Defendant

No. 4 and 5 alongwith Affidavits.

2. Reply of Application U/O 39 Rule 1 and 2

CPC along with affidavits

3. Reply of Application of exemption u/s 80(2)

CPC along with affidavits

4. List of Documents

5. Vakalatnama

DT: . .2023

PLACE: New Delhi Counsel for Defendant no.4 & 5

 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG, LD. CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZRI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ. 2053/2022
In Re:
Saroj ……Plaintiff

Vs
Delhi Jal Board & Ors. ……Defendants
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 4 & 5
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
Preliminary objections:
1. That the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the eyes of law
as plaintiffs have not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean
hands and has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Court
and also because there is no obligation existing in her favour,
whether expressly or by implication for permanent and mandatory
injunction. The suit is liable to be dismissed as it has no cause of
action and it is filed with malafide intention. The suit is not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed because it is filed without
giving proper legal notice to defendant no. 1, 2 & 3 under section 80
CPC as per mandatory provisions of law. The issue of fact and law is
whether the Plaintiff is the owner or co-owner of the suit property i.e
House No 27 (Built property), Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-
110054, it is pertinent to mention here that as per the documents
provided by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the land
pertains to Government land and comes under Re-Development of
Khyber pass area which is to be re-developed by DDA as per Govt
policy and further the plaintiffs are the encroachers/unauthorized
occupants of the suit property in question. Hence the present suit is
barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. It is well settled
law that if the person does not approach the Hon’ble Court with
clean hands and has concealed the material facts from the Hon’ble
Court, the suit is liable to be dismissed on this very ground alone.
2. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed as per the provision 1
(a) (b) laid down in Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It is pertinent to mention
here that there is no cause of action against the defendants no. 4&5
as the present suit is being filed with mala fide intention to grab the
Government land and the plaintiffs are nothing but only the
encroachers upon the suit land. It is submitted that as per
mandatory provisions of law under section 80 CPC, no suits shall be
instituted against the Government or against a public officer in
respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his
official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice
in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of. Further, the
plaintiffs have not paid court fees as they are not in possession of
the suit property. Hence in the absence of Court fees, the present
suit is not maintainable.
3. That the present suit is also liable to be dismissed because plaintiff
have no locus standi and no right whatsoever to seek for permanent
and mandatory injunction for removal of water connection,
cancellation of voter card, ration card and other relevant documents
issued to the defendant no. 4& 5 as the plaintiff is neither the owner
nor in possession of the suit property. The present suit is being filed
to grab the Government land and wants to declare themselves to be
owner of the suit property. The plaintiff has intentionally not made
the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs as necessary party and
without being made the necessary party, the present suit is being
infructuous. It is further submitted that defendant no. 4 & 5 are
citizen of India and it is mandatory by law to have an identity card
issued for every citizen of India and there is no such requirement of
NOC or consent letter from any person as it is a private document.
Defendant no. 4 & 5 have fundamental right to access to basic
nutrition and to participate in elections. Therefore, the suit of the
 plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of law as it is in violation of
right to privacy.
4. That the present suit of the plaintiffs is even otherwise devoid of
merits and is without any jurisdiction, malafide, vexatious and
highlights the misdeeds of the plaintiffs as the relief against the
answering defendant is not clarified.
5. That the claim set up in the present suit is opposed to law and is
contrary to the facts and material on record. The plaintiff is guilty of
suggestion-falsi and suppression – very and due to malicious
conduct of the plaintiff does not deserve any relief founded upon
equity. Hence plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and the suit is
liable to be dismissed.
6. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of false,
fabricated and forged titled documents and as per the authoritative
pronouncements passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in title
“Suraj Lamps Vs State of Haryana “ and other pronouncements, the
GPA, ATS etc are not ownership documents and cannot claim
ownership on the basis of unregistered documents except the Sale
Deed and further the aforesaid documents is neither Sale Deed nor
registered as per registration act under section 17 (1A) of
Registration Act, Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. No stamp
duty has ever been paid on the said document under section 23(A)
of the Indian Stamp Act. The aforesaid unregistered documents i.e
GPA, ATS, WILL, Receipt, Possession Letter, and affidavit dated
22.02.2018 are false, fabricated and forged documents and same
shall be impounded and necessary legal action may be taken against
the plaintiff.
7. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed as per the provisions
Under Order 6 Rule 2 (no material facts against the answering
defendant, and Order 7 Rule 2 (no proper court fee has been
assessed and annexed according to the market value of the suit
 property) and 3(no site plan to give proper description of suit
property) of the CPC. Hence the present suit is liable to be dismissed
as per law

Reply on Merits:
1. That the contents of para no. 1 and 2 of the plaint are wrong and
vehemently denied in toto. It is specifically denied that the plaintiff
is a law abiding citizen of India and residing at the address of the
suit property. It is specifically denied that the plaintiff is the
exclusive owner including her son Ranjit of the suit property and the
plaintiff was in possession of the property. It is specifically denied
that Defendant no. 4 is the tenant of the suit property and a rent
agreement was ever executed in respect of the first floor of the
property between Ranjeet son of plaintiff and Smt. Subhra Kabasi.
It is submitted that the plaintiff is neither owner nor landlord of the
suit property and they are encroachers/unlawful trespassers of the
Government land and the annexed documents are false, fabricated
and forged documents. It is further submitted that as per aforesaid
facts and documents on record, there is no relationship of landlord
and tenancy as the encroacher/trespasser cannot be
landlord/owner of the Government land. It is further submitted that
the son of Plaintiff namely Ranjeet had filed the suit for possession
of the first floor of the suit property and concealed the material facts
and documents before the Ld Civil Judge, Central Tis Hazari Court
in Case No. 1508/2008 in title Ranjeet Vs Subhra Kabasi. It is
submitted that the contents of aforesaid replies and preliminary
objections be read as part hereof and explained as the same have
not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
2. That the Contents of para no. 3, 4, & 5 of the plaint are admitted to
the extent which is matter of record. It is specifically denied that in
2015, the defendants no. 4 & 5 have requested for the tenancy in
 the suit property and requested for its extension. It is specifically
denied that the suit has been partly decreed under Order XII Rule 6
CPC upon the statement of the daughter of the defendant no. 4. It is
submitted that the court has committed a grave error in allowing the
abovementioned statement on record as only the defendant no. 4 is
entitled to make statements before the court and not someone else.
It is specifically denied that after passing of the decree dated
14.08.2019, the defendant no. 4 with the help of her daughter
prepared forged and fabricated documents and had broken the lock
of the ground floor of the suit property. It is submitted that
Defendant no. 4 and 5 were in possession of the ground floor of the
property since long time. In fact, on 13.11.2019, one FIR No.
188/2019, P.S. Civil Lines had been lodged against the plaintiff and
her associates under house trespass, which is pending before Sh.
Dheeraj Mor, Ld. ASJ (Central) for framing of charges. It is denied
that decree dated 14.08.2019 was ever passed. The Ld. Civil Court,
did not appreciate the determination of admission of fact and law as
fact in issue as well as the impugned Judgment and decree
14.08.2019 is per-incuriam as the interpretation of precedent
laws/authoritative pronouncements have not been considered well.
The issue of fact and law is whether the respondent is the owner or
co-owner of the suit property i.e House No 27, 1st Floor, Khyber Pass,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, it is pertinent to mention here that as per
the submission of the defendant no. 4 and documents on record, the
suit property pertains to Government land. Against the decree and
on the grounds abovementioned, defendant no. 4 has filed appeal
RCA DJ/24/2023 which is pending before Dr. Rakesh Kumar-II, Ld.
ADJ (Central) for consideration and adjudication.
3. That the contents of the para no. 6, 7 & 8 are admitted to the extent
which is matter of record. It is specifically denied that answering
defendants has fabricated and forged tittle documents of the suit
 property in connivance with each other. It is submitted that the
plaintiff is neither owner nor landlord of the suit property and she
and her son Ranjeet are encroachers/unlawful trespassers of the
Government land and the annexed documents are false, fabricated
and forged documents. It is further submitted that as per aforesaid
facts and documents on record, there is no relationship of landlord
and tenancy as the encroacher/trespasser cannot be
landlord/owner of the Government land. It is specifically denied that
defendant no. 4 & 5 on the basis of forged and fabricate documents,
had installed the electricity and water connections and also issued
Ration Card and Election Identity Card from defendant no. 2 & 3
without issuing a NOC/Permission, written and oral consent of the
plaintiff. It is specifically denied that one family member of the
answering defendant is an advocate and wants to grab the suit
property. It is submitted that defendant no. 4 & 5 are citizen of India
and it is mandatory by law to have an identity card issued for every
citizen of India and there is no such requirement of NOC or consent
letter from any person. Defendant no. 4 & 5 have fundamental and
constitutional right to access to basic nutrition and right to vote and
plaintiff has no right whatsoever to raise question in respect of the
same and therefore the submissions of the plaintiff is not
maintainable in the eyes of law.
4. That the contents of para no. 8 of the plaint are wrong and
vehemently denied in toto. It is submitted that as per mandatory
provisions of law under section 80 CPC, no suits shall be instituted
against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any
act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official
capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in
writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of. It is specifically
denied that there is any urgency in filing the present suit along with
application for exemption u/s 80(2) of the CPC. It is submitted that
 the plaintiffs are the encroachers and trespasser of the Government
land and made the false, fabricated and forged documents of the suit
property in their name.
5. That the contents of the para no. 9 are wrong and vehemently denied
in toto. It is specifically denied that the plaintiffs have no efficacious
remedy except to file the present suit before this Hon’ble Court. It is
submitted that plaintiff have filed multiple frivolous civil and
criminal litigations pending in different courts with intention to
harass the defendants no. 4 & 5 and to grab the government land.
It is further submitted that the contents of aforesaid replies and
preliminary objections be read as part hereof and explained as the
same have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
6. That the Contents of para no. 10 of the plaint are admitted to the
extent which is matter of record. It is vehemently denied in toto that
the plaintiff has any cause of action against the defendant no. 4&5.
It is specifically denied that plaintiff had ever sent legal notice to
defendant no. 1 to 3 on 30.04.2021. It is specifically denied that the
cause of action is still continues and subsists. It is submitted that
the contents of aforesaid replies and preliminary objections be read
as part hereof and explained as the same have not been repeated
herein for the sake of brevity.
8. That the contents of para 11 of the plaint are wrong and denied in
toto. The present suit of the plaintiffs is even otherwise devoid of
merits and is without any jurisdiction, malafide, vexatious and
highlights the misdeeds of the plaintiffs as the relief against the
answering defendant is not clarified.
7. That the Contents of the para no. 12 of the plaint are wrong and
vehemently denied in toto. It is submitted that no proper court fees
has been annexed each for the relief of Permanent and mandatory
injunction as per the market value of the suit property and further
there is dispute over the ownership of the suit property as the land
 in question pertains to the Government land. The plaintiff claim to
be owner of the suit property without asking for declaration and
further not implead the necessary party.

PRAYER:
It is therefore respectfully prayed that the suit of the plaintiff for
permanent and mandatory injunction may kindly be dismissed
against the defendant no. 4 & 5 with heavy cost, in the interest of
justice.
Any other and/or further relief to which the defendants 4 & 5 may
be found entitled also be granted in favour of the answering
defendants and against the plaintiff.

Delhi: Defendant no.4 & 5

Dated: /08/2023 Through

Counsel for Defendant No. 4 & 5

Verification:
Verified at Delhi on this __ day of _________, 2023 the contents of paras of
Preliminary objections and those paras of reply on merit of the written
statement are true and correct to my knowledge as per information
received from the available records and are believed to be correct. Last
para is reply to the prayer clause and prayer made before this Hon’ble
Court.

Defendant no.4 & 5

 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG, LD. CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZRI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ. 2053/2022
In Re:
Saroj ……Plaintiff

Vs
Delhi Jal Board & Ors. ……Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Subhra Kabasi W/o Lt Sh. Manoranjan Kabasi, R/o House No.
27, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, aged about ____ years, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That the deponent is the defendant no 4 in the above noted case and
is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and
fully competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying written statement has been drafted by my
counsel under my instructions. The contents of the same may be
read as part and parcel of this affidavit, which are not being repeated
for the sake of brevity and are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed there from.

Deponent
Verification:-

Verified at Delhi on this day of _________, 2023 that the contents of

the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part of
it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent
 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG, LD. CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZRI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ. 2053/2022
In Re:
Saroj ……Plaintiff

Vs
Delhi Jal Board & Ors. ……Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shubhankar Kabasi S/o Lt Sh. Manoranjan Kabasi, R/o House
No. 27, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, aged about ____ years, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That the deponent is the defendant no 5 in the above noted case and
is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and
fully competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying written statement has been drafted by my
counsel under my instructions. The contents of the same may be
read as part and parcel of this affidavit, which are not being repeated
for the sake of brevity and are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed there from.

Deponent
Verification:-

Verified at Delhi on this day of _________, 2023 that the contents of

the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part of
it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent
 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG, LD. CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZRI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ. 2053/2022
In Re:
Saroj ……Plaintiff

Vs
Delhi Jal Board & Ors. ……Defendants
Reply of Application Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/W Section 151 of
CPC for grant of Ad-interim ex-parte injunction
Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. That the Contents of para no 1 of the application is matter of record.
2. That the Contents of para no. 2 & 3 of the application are wrong and
vehemently denied in toto. It is submitted that the contents of aforesaid
replies and preliminary objections of written statement be read as part
hereof and explained as the same have not been repeated herein for the
sake of brevity. It is specifically denied that plaintiff has a good prima facie
case in their favour and is likely to succeed in the plaint. It is further
denied that balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and
against the answering defendants and further denied that plaintiff will
suffer irreparable loss and injury if third party is created and any interfere
in the suit property during the pendency of the suit. It is submitted that
the plaintiffs are the encroachers and trespasser of the Government land
and made the false, fabricated and forged documents of the suit property
in their name.
 PRAYER:

It is therefore respectfully prayed that the application of the plaintiff may

kindly be dismissed against the answering defendant, in the interest of
justice.

Any other and/or further relief to which the answering defendant may be
found entitled also be granted in favour of the answering defendant and
against the plaintiff.

Delhi: Defendant No.4 & 5

Dated: / /2023 Through

Counsel for Defendant no.4 & 5

 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG, LD. CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZRI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ. 2053/2022
In Re:
Saroj ……Plaintiff

Vs
Delhi Jal Board & Ors. ……Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Subhra Kabasi W/o Lt Sh. Manoranjan Kabasi, R/o House No.
27, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, aged about ____ years, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That the deponent is the defendant no 4 in the above noted case and
is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and
fully competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying reply of the application under Order 39 Rule
1 and 2 of the CPC has been drafted by my counsel under my
instructions. The contents of the same may be read as part and
parcel of this affidavit, which are not being repeated for the sake of
brevity and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and no
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there
from.

Deponent
Verification:-

Verified at Delhi on this day of _________, 2023 that the contents of

the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part of
it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent
 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG, LD. CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZRI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ. 2053/2022
In Re:
Saroj ……Plaintiff

Vs
Delhi Jal Board & Ors. ……Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shubhankar Kabasi S/o Lt Sh. Manoranjan Kabasi, R/o House
No. 27, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, aged about ____ years, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That the deponent is the defendant no 5 in the above noted case and
is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and
fully competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying reply of the application under Order 39 Rule
1 and 2 of the CPC has been drafted by my counsel under my
instructions. The contents of the same may be read as part and
parcel of this affidavit, which are not being repeated for the sake of
brevity and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and no
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there
from.

Deponent
Verification:-

Verified at Delhi on this day of _________, 2023 that the contents of

the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part of
it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent
 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG, LD. CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZRI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ. 2053/2022
In Re:
Saroj ……Plaintiff

Vs
Delhi Jal Board & Ors. ……Defendants
Reply of Application Under Section 80(2) R/W Section 151 of CPC for
grant of exemption from serving the notice u/s 80 CPC to Defendant
nos. 1 & 2
Most Respectfully Showeth:
That the Contents of para no 1 of the application is matter of record.
2. That the Contents of para no. 2 & 3 of the application are wrong and
vehemently denied in toto. It is submitted that the contents of aforesaid
replies and preliminary objections of written statement be read as part
hereof and explained as the same have not been repeated herein for the
sake of brevity. It is submitted that as per mandatory provisions of law
under section 80 CPC, no suits shall be instituted against the Government
or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by
such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two
months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the
office of. It is further submitted that plaintiff has not impleaded necessary
property namely the Ministry of Urban Housing and Development and has
not given the statutory notice to them. It is specifically denied that there
is any urgency in filing the present suit along with application for
exemption u/s 80(2) of the CPC. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are the
encroachers and trespasser of the Government land and made the false,
fabricated and forged documents of the suit property in their name. It is
further submitted that plaintiff have claimed no immediate relief and
therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed for not giving two months prior
statutory notice to defendant no. 1, 2 & 3.
 PRAYER:

It is therefore respectfully prayed that the application of the plaintiff

seeking exemption from giving two month prior notice to the defendant
nos 1,2 & 3 as provided in section 80 CPC may kindly be dismissed against
the answering defendants, in the interest of justice.

Any other and/or further relief to which the answering defendant may be
found entitled also be granted in favour of the answering defendant and
against the plaintiff.

Delhi: Defendant No.4 & 5

Dated: / /2023 Through

Counsel for Defendant no.4 & 5

 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG, LD. CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZRI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ. 2053/2022
In Re:
Saroj ……Plaintiff

Vs
Delhi Jal Board & Ors. ……Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Subhra Kabasi W/o Lt Sh. Manoranjan Kabasi, R/o House No.
27, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, aged about ____ years, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
3. That the deponent is the defendant no 4 in the above noted case and
is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and
fully competent to swear this affidavit.
4. That the accompanying reply of pplication under Section 80(2) of
CPC has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions. The
contents of the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit,
which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity and are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and no part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed there from.

Deponent
Verification:-

Verified at Delhi on this day of _________, 2023 that the contents of

the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part of
it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent
 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG, LD. CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZRI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ. 2053/2022
In Re:
Saroj ……Plaintiff

Vs
Delhi Jal Board & Ors. ……Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shubhankar Kabasi S/o Lt Sh. Manoranjan Kabasi, R/o House
No. 27, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, aged about ____ years, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
3. That the deponent is the defendant no 5 in the above noted case and
is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and
fully competent to swear this affidavit.
4. That the accompanying under Section 80(2) of CPC has been drafted
by my counsel under my instructions. The contents of the same may
be read as part and parcel of this affidavit, which are not being
repeated for the sake of brevity and are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has
been concealed there from.

Deponent
Verification:-

Verified at Delhi on this day of _________, 2023 that the contents of

the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part of
it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent
 IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG, LD. CIVIL JUDGE,
TIS HAZRI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ. 2053/2022
In Re:
Saroj ……Plaintiff

Vs
Delhi Jal Board & Ors. ……Defendants
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.4 & 5

Delhi: Defendant No.4 & 5

Dated: / /2023 Through

Counsel for Defendant no.4 & 5