WRITTEN STATEMENT FORMAT

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY

O.S. No. ……………………. / 2023

Between:

Smt. XXX Plaintiff

And:

Perfection Personified Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Defendants

WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FILED
BY THE DEFENDANT NO.1

The Defendant No. 1 in the above-mentioned matter humbly submits as hereunder:

1. That the address of the Plaintiff as stated in the cause-title of the Plaint is incorrect. In fact, the Plaintiff
resides in Chennai and her address at Chennai is _________________________________. The addresses
of the Defendants as stated in the cause-title are correct. (as per the requirement under Order VII Rule 1
and Order VI Rule 14A)

2. There is no cause of action for the suit. The suit is misconceived.

3. The averment that the Plaintiff is an Information Technology Consultant working in Tata Consultancy
Services Pvt. Ltd., is true. However, the averment that the Plaintiff is living in Bangalore presently is
false- she is living at Chennai at the address mentioned above. It is not within the knowledge of this
Defendant whether the Plaintiff has been residing in Bangalore for the past 35 years – the said averment
is denied as not admitted.

4. The averments that the Defendant No. 1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013; that
the Defendant No. 1 is engaged in the business of developing properties; that in particular, the
Defendant No. 1 constructs residential apartments and sells the same to purchasers for agreed
consideration are admitted to be true. (Dealing with each allegation of fact specifically – Order 8 Rule 3)

5. The averments that the Defendant No. 1 had advertised in the local newspaper “Deccan Herald” in the
month of January 2016 regarding its new project called ‘Paradise Properties’ located in Sadashivanagar,
Bangalore, and after coming to know of the said project therefrom, the Plaintiff made enquires and
contacted the Defendant No. 1 are true.

6. It is further admitted that the Plaintiff entered into a written agreement dated 20.04.2020 (20 th April Two
Thousand and Twenty) with the Defendant No. 1 company in order to purchase a Flat bearing No.
“C301”, located on the third floor, “B” tower, in an apartment block called “Paradise Properties”
situated at No. 345, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore 560023 which is more fully described in the suit
schedule, for a consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Only)

7. It is true that as per the terms of the said written agreement, the Plaintiff was liable to pay a sum of Rs.
35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) to Defendant No. 1 company as advance consideration. The
balance consideration was payable on or before 20.04.2021 (20 th April Two Thousand and Twenty One)
whereupon, the Defendant No. 1 was required to execute a registered sale deed with regard to the suit
 schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff and also hand over vacant possession of the same. It is true
that Clause 15(A) of the agreement specifically mentions that the balance consideration shall be payable
on or before 20.04.2021 and that Defendant No. 1 shall execute a registered sale deed on the said date in
favour of the Plaintiff.

8. The contention that the Plaintiff duly paid a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) towards
initial advance amount is hereby denied as false. (Specific Denial Order 8 Rule 3). In fact, the Plaintiff
only paid a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) vide cheque bearing No. XXXXXXX drawn on
Syndicate Bank dated 20-04-2020 (20 th April Two Thousand and Twenty) in favour of Defendant No. 1
company and the said sum was duly encashed by this Defendant. (New fact pleaded as per Order 8
Rule 2). The contention that the Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs by Cash on 20-04-
2020 (20th April Two Thousand and Twenty) is hereby denied as false.

9. The further contention that thereupon, the Plaintiff tendered the balance consideration to the Defendant
No. 1 is hereby denied as false. The true facts are that as per Clause 18(9)(O) of the agreement,
unforeseen and unexpected changes in international and domestic markets resulting in large
fluctuations in the price of steel and cement would necessitate the Developer imposing an additional
27% as additional consideration payable by the Purchaser. Accordingly, this Defendant had duly
informed the Plaintiff to pay an additional amount of 27% towards full and final settlement vide its
letter dated 01-04-2021 since there was large scale fluctuation in the markets necessitating payment of
enhanced compensation. This fact has been suppressed by the Plaintiff in the Plaint. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff was liable pay Rs 80 lakhs plus 27% minus Rs. 30 lakhs paid as advance which equals Rs. 71. 6
lakhs on or before the date of performance ie, 20-04-2021. However, instead of tendering Rs 71.6 lakhs
she tendered only Rs. 45 lakhs (Rupees Fourty-Five Lakhs) vide her cheque bearing No. XXXXXXX
drawn on Syndicate Bank dated 20-04-2021 (20 th April Two Thousand and Twenty One). Thus, this
Defendant No. 1 was constrained to return the same. (New facts pleaded under Order 8 Rule 2)

10. It is submitted that time was the essence of the contract. (Defence under the Contract Act, Order 8 Rule
2). The Plaintiff was bound to perform her obligation towards the contract by paying the balance
consideration on or before 20-04-2021 failing which she could not make payments at later dates and
expect performance by this Defendant. Thus, the contention that the Defendant No. 1 failed to abide by
the terms of the contract between the parties is wholly false.

11. The further contention that the Plaintiff after 20.04.2021 (20th April Two Thousand and Twenty One),
made repeated visits to the office of Defendant No. 1 expressing her readiness and willingness to pay
the balance consideration is false. The contention that Defendant No. 1, through its officials i.e.,
Defendant No. 2 its Managing Director and others, kept assuring the Plaintiff that there were some
minor delays in the project and that they would shortly deliver the property and execute the registered
sale deed is false.

12. It is true that the Plaintiff sent several letters to the Defendant asking it to perform its promise but these
requests were belated and misconceived. The contention that Defendant No. 1 kept assuring the
Plaintiff of performance but did not actually perform its part of the contract is false. The contention that
only on 13.08.2022, Defendant No. 1 has issued a letter repudiating its liability to deliver the flat to the
Plaintiff and taking the contention that the Plaintiff was liable to pay an additional sum towards the
consideration amount, is mischievous and false. In fact this Defendant had issued a letter dated 01-04-
2021 itself calling upon the Plaintiff to pay an enhanced amount as per Clause 18(9)(O) of the agreement
which the Plaintiff has suppressed.

13. The contention that the Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract is
false. In fact, this Defendant has always been ready and willing to perform its obligations under the
contract subject to payment of escalated consideration which the Plaintiff was bound to pay.

14. The contention that Defendant No. 2 Mr. Mukesh Lal, is involved in several such real estate projects in
Mumbai and Bangalore is true. However, the contention that in all these projects, he has swindled
honest and innocent investors and several criminal cases are pending against Defendant No. 2 in the
 Courts of Mumbai is hereby denied as false. The said statements are mischievous, irrelevant, scurrilous
and designed to scandalize the Defendant No. 2 and injure his reputation.

15. The contention that the Plaintiff has incurred severe financial loss as a result of the breach of contract by
the Defendant No.1 is false. The contention that Plaintiff has availed loan of Rs. 60 lakhs (Rupees Sixty
Lakhs) from Canara Bank repayable at 11% p.a. interest on 01-04-2020 (1 st April Two Thousand Twenty)
is not within the knowledge of this Defendant and not admitted to be true. (Order 8 Rule 5) The Plaintiff
is not entitled to specific performance, nor damages since she is the party in breach.

16. That in any event the suit is barred by time. (Limitation- Order 8 Rule 2).

17. This Hon’ble Court does not have pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this suit. As such, the suit
is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court. The suit schedule property is situated within the
territorial limits of Bangalore Rural District. ( Lack of jurisdiction - Order 8 Rule 2).

18. The claim for future damages is not maintainable. (Order 8 Rule 2).

19. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The owner of the Plot No. 345, Sadashivanagar,
Bangalore 560023, is Sri Rangarajan K. who has not been impleaded in the case. In fact, the agreement
dated 20-04-2020 refers to a Joint Development Agreement dated 01-01-2015 and Mr. Rangarajan is also
a signatory to the agreement dated 20-04-2020 as the landowner. (Order 1 read with Order 8 Rule 2).

20. That the suit is undervalued. Plaintiff has not paid the requisite court-fee payable in the matter. (Order
8 Rule 2).

21. The suit is a mischievous attempt to harass and intimidate this Defendant. (a little masala…)

22. Wherefore, this Defendant humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to dismiss the suit with
costs, in the interest of justice.

[Signature] [Signature]

Advocate for Defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 1

(Signed and verified as per Order 6 Rules 14 and 15)

VERIFICATION

I, Mukesh Lal, the Managing Director of the Defendant No. 1 in the above case, do hereby verify and state that
this is my name and signature and that the statements made at Paragraphs 1 to 22 hereinabove are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

[Signature]

Bangalore,

Date: 01-06-2023 Defendant No. 1

 IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY

O.S. No. ……………………. / 2023

Between:

Smt. XXX Plaintiff

And:

Perfection Personified Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Defendants

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Mr. Mukesh Lal, Managing Director, Perfection Personified Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at No. 316, Nariman
Towers, Mumbai-501 201 today at Bangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under.

1. I am the Managing Director of the Defendant No.1 in the above case and I am conversant with the facts
of the case. I am duly authorized to swear to this affidavit on behalf of the Defendant No. 1 Company.
Hence, I am swearing to this affidavit.
2. I state that the averments made in paras 1 to 22 of the accompanying written statement are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

I, the deponent herein, do hereby verify and state that what is stated above are true and correct.

[Signature]

Identified by me

[Signature] DEPONENT

Advocate

Bangalore

Date: 01-06-2023

No. of corrections: nil

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY

 O.S. No. ……………………. / 2023

Between:

Smt. XXX Plaintiff

And:

Perfection Personified Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Defendants

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FOR THE DEFENDANT NO. 1

(Order 8 Rule 1A.)

1. Document No. 1: Original Bank passbook for 2020 to 2023 of the Defendant No. 1.
2. Document No. 2: Original letter of Defendant No. 1 dated 01-04-2021 to the Plaintiff.
[Signature]

Bangalore

Date: 01-06-2023 Advocate for Defendant No. 1