IN THE COURT OF LD.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS,

NEW DELHI.

IN THE MATTER OF:

DEVENDER GUPTA

\S/O SH. LAJJARAM GUPTA

R/'O H. NO. 7, J-3, INFRONT OF KALI MANDIR,

SANGAM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110080 ...PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

1. SH. DEEP CHAND GUPTA

S/O SH. LAJJARAM GUPTA R/O G-1377, SANGAM VIHAR,

NEW DELHI-110080

2. Smt. SUMAN-GUPTA W/O SH. DEEP CHAND GUPTA R/O G-

1377, SANGAM VIHAR,NEW DELHI-110080 .

3. THE MOTOR LICENSING OFFICER,

AUTO UNIT; TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,

BUR'ARI, NEW DELHI ...DEFENDANT

SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the plaintiff is peace loving person and permanent resident of

above mentioned address.

2. That the defendant no.l is real brother of the plaintiff and defendant

no.2 is wife of defendant no.l. Plaintiff and defendants are residing

in the same locality.

3. That two auto rickshaws vehicles had already been sold out by the

defendant no/I & 2 to the plaintiff. The auto rickshaw (TSR)

bearing no.DL-1R-G-2891 was sold by the defendant no.1 on

 dated 15.12.2008 • in the .sum /of Rs. 1, 30,'000/- to the Plaintiff

and all-., the relevant documents i.e. Form29. and Form30 as well

as written acknowledgements were sighed by the defendant no.l in

favour of the plaintiff after receiving the entire sale consideration

amount. The auto bearing no. DL-1RE-9980 was sold out by the

defendant no.2 namely Suman Gupta on dated 10.05.2Q05 in for

the sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to the plaintiff and all the relevant

documents i.e. Form 29 and Form 30 as well as written

acknowledgements were signed by the defendant no.2 in favour of

the plaintiff after receiving the entire sale consideration amount.

Copies of all the aforesaid relevant documents are annexed

herewith.

4. That the auto rickshaw bearing no. DL-lR-G- 2891 was financed

from the M/s Rupayam Finance & 'Industrial Corporation Ltd and

all the installments were duly paid by the plaintiff on time and after

making all the installments by the plaintiff, the N.O.C was issued

by the above said finance company. Copy of the same is annexed

herewith.

5. That the validity of the permit receipt of the auto bearing, no.DL-

1RG-2891 was going to be expired on 18.07:2016 however the

permit has not been issued, by the transport authority because the

defendant no.l being a registered owner has not been appeared

before the concern authority (defendant no.3) for the appropriate

proceedings and verification etc. due to that reason the permit was

not issued by the transport authority and therefore, the above said
 auto was not plying, on road due to non-availability of the permit.

The registration certificate, Permit and Fitness certificate of auto

bearing no.DL-1RE-9980 has already expired vide dated

17.01,2016 due to which the above said auto was not plying on

road since, then as the permit of the' same had already expired and

the amount was paid by the plaintiff for renewal of the same but

the defendant no.2 did not appear before the transport authority

(defendant no. 3 for further proceedings. Copies of the relevant

documents are annexed herewith.

6. That the plaintiff has already purchased the above said two auto

rickshaws from the defendants and the relevant documents weir’d

also signed by the defendants after taking thi$ sale amount at the

time of the sale of the vehicles. However due to some technical

reasons of the transport authority the same auto rickshaws were not

transferred in the name of the plaintiff and since then both autos as

well, as all the documents were in the possession of the

applicant/accused.

7. That both the auto rickshaw's were even not plying on road due to

non-availability of permit and fitness certificate and kept on road

just because. of the non-co-operation of the defendants to get the

same done from the transport authority deliberately and

intentionally.

8. That the plaintiff was continuously requesting the defendants to

appear before the defendant no. 3 for transfer of the ownership

from the names of defendants to Plaintiff however all in vain. The

 defendants were deliberately and intentionally delaying the

process on one pretext or other.

9. That suddenly the defendant no.l fraudulently managed to get

registered an FIR bearing no.320/2020, dated 26.05.2020, under

section 379/406, PS: Sangam Vihar, New Delhi against the

plaintiff on the basis of false and Concocted story just to grab the

aforesaid vehicles and extort money from the plaintiff. Copy of the

FIR no. 320/2020 is annexed herewith.

10. That the plaintiff has been falsely implicated by the defendants in

the aforesaid FIR just to extort the money from the plaintiff on the

pretext of name of the defendants ……mentioned as registered

owners with the transport authority qua the aforesaid- auto

rickshaws.

11. That thereafter, the plaintiff had filed anticipatory bail application

before the District & Sessions court, Saket Court, New Delhi

whereby the court of Sh. A jay'- Kumar Kuhar, Ld. ASJ, Saket

Court, New Delhi has granted the anticipatory bail to the plaintiff

vide order dated 03.06.2016. The Ld. ASJ has observed in its order

that "Applicant/accused has placed on record duly signed Fcrrti-

2,9; Form-30; a receipt of payment of Rs.1,30,000/- and a

handwritten -statement of Deepchand having sold the vehicle to

Devender Gupta and having received Rs.1,30,000/- in cash,

Similarly, with regard to TSR bearing no.DL- l-RE-9980,

applicant/accused has annexed duly signed For,-29; Form;30 and. a

statement reflecting the receipt, of Rs. 1,10,000/- by Smt. Suman

 Gupta on account of sale of TSR’s & "Prima-facie, these

documents show that sale of the vehicle in question to the

applicant/accused. Although, in the Transport department, /

vehicles are registered in the name of Deepchand and Smt. Suman

Gupta, that may be for some technical reasons 10 shall verify all

these documents and if any dispute arise with regard to signatures

of Deepchand and Smt. Suman Gupta on these documents, then he

shall get them examined at FSL." Copy of the order dated

03.06.2016 is annexed herewith.

12. That thereafter, the aforesaid two auto vehicles along with all the

original aforementioned documents were seized by the

Investigating officer/police during the investigation of the case FIR

no.320/2020, State vs Devender Gupta for the purpose of

investigation and 'now all the original documents are lying with the

police at Police station Sangam Vihar.

13. That now plaintiff has discovered that the defendants want to take

two new auto Auto Rikshaws (TSRs) against the replacement of

the aforesaid vehicles. The defendants have applied with the

transport authority (Defendant no.3) to issue permits for few

vehicles on the same registration numbers of aforesaid old auto

rikshaws (TSRS) i.e DLI-1RG-2891 & DL-1RE-9980 under

replacement policy of old commercial vehicles. The defendants

have fraudulently submitted documents and fees with the transport

authority (defendant no.l} without disclosing the pendency of the

case FIR no. 320/2020 and execution of the aforesaid transfer

 documents, by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The

defendant no’. 3 has initiated the process to issue fresh permits for

the new vehicles (TSRS) on the same registration numbers of the

old two auto rikshaws (TSRS) in favour of the defendants. Copy of

the road tax payment receipt is annexed herewith.

14. That the defendants deliberately and intentionally did not. disclose

the true facts before the transport authority (Defendant no. 3) about

the sell, transaction took place between the plaintiff and defendants

in respect of the aforesaid vehicles at the time of applying for

issuance of new permits for new vehicles. The plaintiff is the

bonafide owner and purchaser of the auto rikshaw bearing no. DL-

1RG-2891 & DL-IRE-9980 as the same had already been sold by

defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 to the plaintiff.

15. That the defendants have misused the process of law. The

defendants intentionally and deliberately had appeared before the

concern transport authority (Defendant no.3) for the transfer of the

ownership from the defendants to the plaintiff. Now defendants

fraudulently have applied for issuance of the new permits for the

new vehicles against the registration number of the old vehicles

and deliberately caused wrongful loss to the plaintiff is misusing,

the process of law' The plaintiff has apprehension that the'

defendant's fraudulently and illegally may get Issue new permits

for new vehicles against registration numbers of the old aforesaid

vehicles from the transport department (Defendant no.3) by

 concealing the true facts of selling of the vehicles by them in

favour of the plaintiff.

16. That the defendants have no legal riqhts over the aforesaid vehicles

of the plaintiff. The act of the defendants is unwarranted and they

have no right to infringe/interfere the ownership and peaceful

possession of the vehicles of the plaintiff.

17. That the defendant is also not desisting from his illegal activities in

one or other pretext therefore he is to be restrained by way of

permanent injunction from creating any nuisance for the plaintiff

in any form whatsoever and further to restrain the defendant no.3

by way of mandatory injunction to restrain him to issue fresh

permits .for the new vehicles (Auto 'Rikshaws) against the same

registration number of old vehicles of the plaintiff by way of

replacement policy. Further the defendants may be directed by way

of mandatory injunction to take appropriate steps ‘to get transfer

the ownership in favour of the plaintiff by appearing before the

transport authority (defendant no.3) required as per law.

18. That the plaintiff craves leaves of this Hon'ble Court under Order.

II rule 2 for seeking subsequent relief which arose/accrued during

the pendency of the present suit.

19. That there is no other efficacious remedy available to the plaintiff

except the present suit. Hence the present suit.

20. That the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss if the permanent and

mandatory injunction not granted to him.

21. That the cause of action arose firstly on dated 10.05.2005 when

defendant no.2 had sold auto bearing no. DL-1RE-9980 to the

plaintiff and executed aforementioned relevant documents in

favour of the plaintiff and cause of action further arose on dated

15.12.2008 when defendant no.l had sold auto rikshaw(TSR)

bearing no. DL-1R-G-2891 to the plaintiff and executed

aforementioned relevant documents in favour of the plaintiff. The

cause of action further arose when the defendants did not appear

before the transport authority (Defendant no.3) to transfer the

ownership from defendants to plaintiff as required by 1 ci w. The

cause of action further arose on dated 26. 05.2016, when

defendants fraudulently and falsely managed to get registered an

FIR bearing no.320/2020, under section 379/406 IPC PS: Sangam

Vihar against the Plaintiff on the basis of false and concocted

story.' The cause of action further arose in the month of July 2021

when defendants fraudulently have applied for issuance of new

permits Cor new vehicles against the same registration numbers of

old vehicles under replacement police floated by defendant no.3.

The cause of action for filing the present suit is continued and is

subsisting one in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

22. That the suit is valued for the purpose/of court fee and jurisdiction

Rs.130 for relief of mandatory injunction and Rs.130/- for the

relief of permanent injunction. The appropriate court fees have

been affixed with the plaint.

23. That both the parties are residents of Delhi and the vehicles in

question are registered in Delhi and sell transaction took place at

Sangam Vihar within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court: This

Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit

as the defendants are residing within the jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble Court.

P R.A Y E R:

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to

pass the following orders:

a) Pass a order/decree of Permanent Injunction whereby

restraining the defendant through his

agents/servants/attorneys and assignees from creating any

nuisance for the plaintiff in any form whatsoever and

b) Pass a order/decree of Mandatory injunction whereby

restraining the defendant no.3 through his agents/ servants

/attorneys and assignees to issue fresh permits for the new

vehicles (Auto Rikshaws). against the same registration

number i.e. DL-1R-G- 2891 & DL-1RE-9980 of old

vehicles of the plaintiff by under replacement policy floated

by defendant no.3.

c) Pass a order/decree of Mandatory injunction whereby

directory the defendant no.l & 2 to take appropriate steps to

get transfer the ownership in favour of the plaintiff by

appearing before the transport authority defendant no.3)

 required as per law failing which the defendant no.3 may be

directed to transfer the ownership of the aforesaid vehicles

from the name of defendants to the Plaintiff in view of the

transfer/sell documents executed by the Defendants in,

favour of the plaintiff.

d) Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and

proper in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, in

the interest of Justice.