IN THE COURT OF SH.ARUN GOEL, LD.

ACJ CUM
ARC, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

SUIT NO.:958/2018

IN RE:

STATE BANK OF INDIA PLAINTIFF

V/S

SMT. BABLI JOSHI DEFENDANT

DOH: 30/01/2020

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE

DEFENDANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:
1. That the present suit filed by the

plaintiff is false, frivolous and

baseless, therefore the present suit

is liable to be dismissed.

2. That the defendant has purchased

the machine for doing the tailoring work

and doing the job of readymade

garments, out of the said amount.

Thereafter he took a shop bearing no. C-

9 situated at Rana Pratap Bagh, on the

rent at the rate of Rs. 11000/- per

month, she purchased the counter chair ,

tools and decorate the shop which was

required for doing her said work to

impress the clients’ , so that she could

get his business from his client, but it

is her bad luck that the said business

of tailoring and preparation of the

remedy garments and could not be succeed

after her best efforts and she tried

best to establish her business for the

reasonable time. But at last she could

not success and her business work

totally failed. Her financial condition

became bed to breast and due to her bad

financial condition, she could not paid

the rent to the landlord of the shop due

to the losses occurred in her business.

The said landlord put his lock on the

shop. The entire goods of the defendant

has been lying in the said rented shop.

3. In these circumstances, the

defendant is empty handed. She has not

been paying the installment of the loan

to he plaintiff inspite of best efforts.

Her intention are very clearly to pay

back the said loan but her financial

circumstances has been not permitting

her to do so because of suffering of her

husband from the deceased of paralysis.

4. It is submitted that the respondent

has been doing Private Job at the salary

of Rs. 7000/- per month , therefore she

could pay the said loan in the

installment of Rs. 3000/- per month. In

mediation cell, the respondent was

prepared to return the said loan to the

plaintiff bank in the installment of

Rs.3000/- per month, but the officials

of the plaintiff refused to except the

proposal of the defendant, therefore she

 was not at fault as her intention is

very honest.

5. Thereafter, the plaintiff called the

defendant to pay the loan amount before

his higher Authority in the month of

November and December 2019, but the

proposal of the defendant for paying

the loan in the installment of Rs.

3000/- per month. The said proposal of

the defendant was rejected by the higher

authority of the defendant bank as they

wanted entire loan amount in one

installment from the defendant and the

same was not possible for the

defendant.

REPLY ON MERITS:

1-3.The reply to the contents of

paragraph no.1 to 3 of the plaint can

not be given by the defendant due to

lack of knowledge.
4. That the contents of para no.4

of the plaint are wrong and denied. It

is specifically denied that any income

proof was given by the defendant to

the plaintiff before the sanction of

loan as same is not placed on the

record of case file before this

Hon’ble court by the plaintiff.

5.That the contents of para no.5 of

the plaint are wrong and denied except

the sanction of loan of

Rs.1,90,000/-. It is submitted that

the defendant has purchased the

machine for doing the tailoring work

and doing the job of readymade

garments, out of the said amount.

Thereafter he took a shop bearing no.

C-9 situated at Rana Pratap Bagh, on

the rent at the rate of Rs. 11000/-

per month, she purchased the counter

chair , tools and decorate the shop

which was required for doing her said

work to impress the clients’ , so that

she could get his business from his

client, but it is her bad luck that

the said business of tailoring and

preparation of the remedy garments and

could not be succeed after her best

efforts and she tried best to

establish her business for the

reasonable time. But at last she could

not success and her business work

totally failed. Her financial

condition became bed to breast and due

to her bad financial condition, she

could not paid the rent to the

landlord of the shop due to the losses

occurred in her business. The said

landlord put his lock on the shop. The

entire goods of the defendant has been

lying in the said rented shop.

 In these circumstances, the

defendant is empty handed. She has not

been paying the installment of the

loan to he plaintiff inspite of best

efforts. Her intention are very

clearly to pay back the said loan but

her financial circumstances has been

not permitting her to do so because of

suffering of her husband from the

deceased of paralysis.

It is submitted that the respondent

has been doing Private Job at the

salary of Rs. 7000/- per month ,

therefore she could pay the said loan

in the installment of Rs. 3000/- per

month. In mediation cell, the

respondent was prepared to return the

said loan to the plaintiff bank in the

installment of Rs.3000/- per month,

but the officials of the plaintiff

refused to except the proposal of the

 defendant, therefore she was not at

fault as her intention is very honest.

Thereafter, the plaintiff called the

defendant to pay the loan amount

before his higher Authority in the

month of November and December 2019,

but the proposal of the defendant

for paying the loan in the installment

of Rs. 3000/- per month. The said

proposal of the defendant was rejected

by the higher authority of the

defendant bank as they wanted entire

loan amount in one installment from

the defendant and the same was not

possible for the defendant.

6. That in the reply of the contents of

para no.6, the respondent signed the

some papers. But she did not know the

contents of the said papers as she was

not educated except to know her

signature only. She was not aware of the

 contents of the said papers , on which

the plaintiff took her signature. The

plaintiff bank never read over the

contents of the said papers to the

respondents. When the respondent asked

about these papers the officials of the

plaintiff bank told that it is only

just formalities.

7-8. That para no.7-8 of the plaint are

wrong and denied except to the

knowledge of the loan installment of

Rs.3334/- per month and 57

installment of the loan amount. It is

submitted that the defendant never

agreed to pay the interest of 12.25%

per annum as alleging by the

plaintiff bank. She was never told by

the official of the plaintiff bank

about the rate of the interest of

12.25 % per annum at the time of

granting the loan.

9. That para no.9 of the plaint are

wrong and denied except the opening of

the bank Loan A/c no. 36387756731.

10. That para no.10 of the plaint are

wrong and denied. It is submitted that

the legal notice was not sent by the

plaintiff to the defendant.

11. That para no.11 of the plaint are

wrong and denied.

12. That para no.12 of the plaint are

wrong and denied.

13. That para no.13 of the plaint are

wrong and denied. In view of the

preliminary objections.

14. That the contents of para no.14 of

the suit are wrong and denied. It is

submitted that no cause of action ever

arose in favour of the plaintiff and

against the defendant.

15-16.That the contents of para no.15-16

of the suit are legal para.

Any allegations made in the present

suit which are not specifically denied

herein are wrong and denied and its

non specific denial shall not be taken

as an admission to the part of

answering defendant.

That the contents of the prayer

clause of the suit being bereft of

merits are wrong and categorically

denied. Plaintiff is not entitled to

the relief as claimed from this

Hon’ble Court.

P R A Y E R
It is, therefore, most respectfully

prayed that in view of the preliminary

objections and other submissions made

herein above, the suit of the

plaintiff, which is devoid of merits

may kindly be dismissed with exemplary

cost, in the interest of justice.

 It is prayed accordingly.

DEFENDANT

DELHI
DATED: THROUGH

COUNSEL

VERIFICATION: Verified at Delhi on day of

January 2020 that the contents of the above

Written Statement containing Para no.: 1 to

5 of the preliminary objections are believed

to be correct on the basis of the legal

advise received and those of Para no.1 to 16

are believed to be true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief, no part of

its is false and nothing material has been

concealed therefrom.

The Last Para is a prayer to this

Hon’ble Court.

DEFENDANT
 IN THE COURT OF SH.ARUN GOEL, LD. ACJ CUM
ARC, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

SUIT NO.:958/2018

IN RE:

STATE BANK OF INDIA PLAINTIFF

V/S

SMT. BABLI JOSHI DEFENDANT

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN

FILING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT

Most respectfully showeth

1. That the above noted case is

pending before this Hon’ble court

and is fixed for today for further

proceedings.

2. That it is submitted that

defendant could not file the present

Written statement within the

stipulated period due to the reason

that submitted that the defendant

has been doing Private Job at the

salary of Rs. 7000/- per month ,

therefore she could pay the said

loan in the installment of Rs.

3000/- per month. In mediation

cell, the respondent was prepared to

return the said loan to the

plaintiff bank in the installment of

Rs.3000/- per month, but the

officials of the plaintiff refused

to except the proposal of the

defendant, therefore she was not at

fault as her intention is very

honest.

Thereafter, the plaintiff called

the defendant to pay the loan amount
before his higher Authority in the
month of November and December 2019,
but the proposal of the defendant
for paying the loan in the
installment of Rs. 3000/- per
month. The said proposal of the
defendant was rejected by the higher
authority of the defendant bank as
they wanted entire loan amount in
 one installment from the defendant
and the same was not possible for
the defendant.

3. That the settlement proceedings

between the plaintiff and respondent
could not converted into the
fruitful result therefore the
applicant/defendant could not file
the written statement within time.

PRAYER

It is therefore prayed that this

Hon’ble court may kindly be allow

this application, in the interest of

justice.

APPLICANT

THROUGH

DELHI:

DATED COUNSEL
 IN THE COURT OF SH.ARUN GOEL, LD. ACJ CUM
ARC, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

SUIT NO.:958/2018

IN RE:

STATE BANK OF INDIA PLAINTIFF

V/S

SMT. BABLI JOSHI DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT

I, BABLI JOSHI W/O SH. KAMAL JOSHI R/O

191, KABIR NAGAR, RANA PRATAP BAGH, DELHI DO
HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER:

1. That the deponent is the defendant

in the above noted matter and I am fully

conversant with the facts of the case

and competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying written

statement has been drafted by my counsel

and as per my instructions and read over

in vernacular language and I understood

the same and which is correct as per my

knowledge and the same may be read as

part and parcel of this affidavit and

 the same are not repeated here for the

sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: -Verified at Delhi on this

day of January 2020 that the contents of

this affidavit are true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief and nothing

has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF SH.ARUN GOEL, LD. ACJ CUM
ARC, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

SUIT NO.:958/2018

IN RE:

STATE BANK OF INDIA PLAINTIFF

V/S

SMT. BABLI JOSHI DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT

I, BABLI JOSHI W/O SH. KAMAL JOSHI R/O

191, KABIR NAGAR, RANA PRATAP BAGH, DELHI DO
HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER:

1. That the deponent is the defendant

in the above noted matter and I am fully

conversant with the facts of the case

and competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying application

has been drafted by my counsel and as

per my instructions and read over in

vernacular language and I understood the

same and which is correct as per my

knowledge and the same may be read as

 part and parcel of this affidavit and

the same are not repeated here for the

sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: -Verified at Delhi on this

day of January 2020 that the contents of

this affidavit are true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief and nothing

has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT