IN THE COURT OF SH. ANURAG SAIN, LD.

DJ(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), NEW DELHI DISTRICT,

PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS
CS COMM 500/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIPIN PAL, PARTNER OF B.B ENGINEERS AND
CONTRACTORS …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KARAMBIR RANA BUILDERS AND ORS.
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR …DEFENDANTS
INDEX
S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. WRITTEN STATEMENT ON
BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS NO. 1
AND 2 ALONG WITH
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS ALONG
WITH DOCUMENTS
3. VAKALATNAMA

NEW DELHI DEFENDANTS

DATED:12.02.2024 THROUGH

YOGESH RANA
Advocates
Ch. No. 332, Lawyers Chamber Block
Dwarka Court, Sector 10
New Delhi 110075
Mobile: 9971885087
e-mail: adv.kartikeyamudgil@gmail.com
 IN THE COURT OF SH. ANURAG SAIN, LD. DJ
(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS
CS COMM 500/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIPIN PAL, PARTNER OF B.B ENGINEERS AND
CONTRACTORS …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KARAMBIR RANA BUILDERS AND ORS.
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR …DEFENDANTS
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
NO. 1 AND 2.
With prejudice to the rights and contentions of the answering
Defendants as protected under the law and upon facts of this case
as shall more specifically be submitted hereinafter, it is submitted
that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is wholly unjustified,
inconsequential and non-est, in so far as no cause of action has
ever arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1. That the present suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable in

eyes of law as the Plaintiff has not approached this
Hon’ble court with clean hands and has concealed the
material facts from this Hon’ble court which are kind
sufficient for dismissal of the present suit. It is a well
settled preposition of law that a person who does not
approach the Hon’ble court with clean hands and has
concealed the material facts from the Hon’ble court then
the instant suit would be liable to be dismissed on this very
ground.
2. That Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit
against the defendant. Therefore, the instant suit of
Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed under order 7 rule 11 of
CPC on this very ground.
3. The present suit is barred by law due to misjoinder of
parties. It is submitted that the Plaintiff’s suit is bad due to
misjoinder of parties as the instant suit has wrongly
impleaded the Defendant No. 2 and therefore, the instant
suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. That the claim set up in the present suit under reply is
opposed to law and is contrary to the facts and material on
record. The Plaintiff is guilty of suggestio falsi and
suppressio veri and due to malicious conduct, the Plaintiff
does not deserve any relief founded upon equity. As such
the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief against the
defendants and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. That the Plaintiff is trying to hoodwink this Hon’ble Court
by concealing various material facts which will be
specifically mentioned hereinafter, and as such, the instant
suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. That the claim/relief set up in the present suit is contrary to
the provisions of law as the Plaintiff is seeking recovery of
money’s worth of movables/goods which have already
been supplied to the Plaintiff. It is a settled law that a
person seeking remedy of recovery of money must have a
just cause of action. It is submitted that as the Plaintiff has
already received the goods as agreed upon between the
parties, within stipulated time period, as and when directed
by the Plaintiff, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. That the claim set up in the instant suit is not maintainable
and thus, the instant suit is liable to be dismissed. It is
further submitted that the Plaintiff is misleading this
Hon’ble Court by stating that any amount other than Rs.
5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Only) has been transferred
to the Defendant company and the same was solely for
supply of ready-mix tarcoal material by the Defendant
company to the Plaintiff as and when directed by the
Plaintiff.
8. That the present suit has not been filed with affixation of
appropriate court fee by the Plaintiff and hence, the present
suit deserves outright dismissal by this Hon’ble Court.
9. That the present suit filed by the Plaintiff is not
maintainable because of non-joinder of necessary parties to
the present suit and as such the present suit is liable to be
dismissed.
10.That the present suit filed by the Plaintiff is not
maintainable because no cause of action has ever arose in
favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants because
as the Plaintiff has duly supplied the ready-mix tarcoal
material to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- which is evident as
per the Tax Invoices and Dharam Kanta receipts annexed
by the Plaintiff.
11.That the Plaintiff has admittedly stated that he approached
the answering defendants for work in “Bunny Camp,
Airforce Station, Najafgarh, New Delhi and other pending
sites”. It is submitted that the raw materials as ordered by
the Plaintiff, were not exclusive to the said Bunny Camp
but to other pending sites of the Plaintiff, therefore, the
Defendant is not liable for any discrepancies which might
 have arose in his MES Contractual work in the said Bunny
Camp and at the cost of repetition, it is submitted that the
Defendants had supplied the said goods as and when
directed by the Plaintiff but the Defendants were neither
involved nor agreed to any ‘road construction work to be
done by the Defendants’ and therefore, the present suit is
liable to be dismissed forthwith.
12.That the Plaintiff is misleading this Hon’ble Court by
stating that the officials of the Plaintiff company had paid
Rs. 3,00,000/- separately to any clerk/employee of
Defendant No. 1 and therefore, the present suit is liable to
be dismissed. It is further submitted that the alleged
voucher as annexed by the Plaintiff is a forged instrument
which was forged solely for harassing the Defendants by
misleading this Hon’ble Court.
13.That the Defendant no. 1 has already paid the GST of the
materials as supplied to the Plaintiff in the Financial Year
2021-22 which is evident from the ‘FORM GSTR-1-
Details of outward Supplies of goods or services’ which is
annexed herewith as Annexure A-1 and therefore, the
present suit is liable to be dismissed.
14.That the present suit is also liable to be dismissed as the
alleged claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Only)
is barred by the laws of limitation.

PARA-WISE REPLY:

1. That the contents of para no. 1 are denied for want of

specific knowledge.
2. That the contents of para no. 2 are wrong and hence,
denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff is the
 partner of B.B Engineers and Construction. The Plaintiff
be put to strict proof thereof. It is further submitted that
due to the conduct as mentioned in the para under reply,
the present claim of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
3. That the contents of para no. 3 are denied for want of
specific knowledge.
4. That the contents of para no. 4 which are contrary to what
is averred hereinafter are denied. It is submitted that the
Defendant No 1 is in the business of supplying raw
material for various construction works which is not
exclusive to ‘road works’ but it is specifically denied that
the Defendants are in the business of constructing road. It
is denied that the Defendant No. 2 is the proprietor of the
Defendant No. 1.
5. That the contents of para no. 5 are denied for want of
knowledge.
6. That the contents of para no. 6 are wrong and hence,
denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff has
approached the Defendants in month of July, 2020 for
supplying of ready-mix tarcol material (i.e Mixuture of
concrete and tarcoal) and construction of road in Bunny
Camp, Airforce Station, Najafgarh, New Delhi; Delhi
Cantt. and other pending sites. It is further denied that the
Defendants demanded Rs. 8,00,000/- as advance amount
for work. Contrary to the averments in the para under
reply, the Plaintiff approached the Defendants solely for
supply of materials as and when required, stating that the
Plaintiff is involved in several projects and therefore needs
raw material at various sites and therefore, the Plaintiff
paid Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Defendant No. 1.
7. That the contents of para no. 7 of the instant plaint which
are contrary to the averments hereafter and in the
preliminary objections are wrong and hence, denied. It is
further denied that the amount as paid by the Plaintiff was
a part-payment for any work. It is stated herein that the
said amount was payment for supply of ‘BC’ by the
Defendants to the sites of Plaintiff as and when directed by
the Plaintiff and the rates of the same were fixed at Rs.
5,000/- per mt. It is specifically denied that any kind of
work as promised by the Defendants was ever stopped by
the Defendants at any point of time.
8. That the contents of para no. 8 are wrong and hence,
denied. It is specifically denied that the plaintiff again
approached the defendants in the month of October 2021
for further work/construction of road at the said pending
site and it is further denied that the defendants demanded
any amount from the Plaintiff for supply of goods or
starting any construction work. The Plaintiff be put to
strict proof thereof.
9. That the contents of para no. 9 are wrong and hence,
denied It is specifically denied that upon the instruction of
Defendant no.2, the Plaintiff had further made the payment
of amount Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupee Three lakh only) in cash
to Munshi/Manager of Defendants, namely Bhola, by
visiting the office of Defendants at the above-mentioned
address/office of defendants on 21.10.2021. It is
specifically denied that the any voucher was given by any
clerk of the Defendants. The Plaintiff be put to strict proof
thereof.
10.That the contents of para no. 10 are wrong and hence,
denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff
approached the Defendants regarding construction of road
at any of his alleged sites.
11.That the contents of para no. 11 are wrong and hence,
denied. The Plaintiff be put to strict proof thereof.
12.That the contents of para no. 12 are wrong and hence,
denied. It is specifically denied that due to pressure from
MES and time line provided in contract between plaintiff
and MES, it is further denied that the Plaintiff had to
engage some other builders to complete his contractual
work within the requisite time. It is denied that the same
was not completed due to fault of Defendants and it is
denied plaintiff was in posed with penalty for extending
the time of contract and in both contracts. The Plaintiff be
put to strict proof thereof.
13.That the contents of para no. 13 are wrong and hence,
denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendants
received any advance amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- for road
and supply the material at site of plaintiff. The rest of the
averments of the Plaintiff are also denied.
14.That the contents of para no. 14 are wrong and hence,
denied.
15.That the contents of para no. 15 which are contrary to the
averments of the Defendants in their preliminary
objections and averment hereinafter, are denied. It is
specifically denied that the said documents are forged by
the Defendants.
16.That the contents of para no. 16 are wrong and hence,
denied.
 17.That the contents of para no. 17 are wrong and hence,
denied.
18.That the contents of para no. 18 are wrong and hence,
denied.
19.That the contents of para no. 19 are wrong and hence,
denied.
20.That the contents of para no. 20 are wrong and hence,
denied. It is specifically denied that any cause of action
arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants
at any point of time.
21.That the contents of para no. 21 are wrong and hence,
denied. It is denied that this Hon’ble Court has the
jurisdiction to try and entertain this instant suit.
22.That the contents of para no. 22 are wrong and hence,
denied. It is denied that the instant suit is affixed with the
appropriate court fee.
23.That the contents of para no. 23 need no reply.

The prayer paragraph of the instant suit is based on false

premises and misleading averments by the Plaintiff and the same
averments have been specifically answered in the preceding
paragraphs of the instant written statement and therefore, the
instant suit is liable to be rejected summarily.

PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the suit of the

plaintiff may kindly be dismissed against the answering
defendant, with heavy compensatory costs, 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

NEW DELHI DEFENDANT NO.

1
DATED: /02/2024
THROUGH

YOGESH RANA
ADVOCATE
D/8868/2022,
 IN THE COURT OF SH. ANURAG SAIN, LD.
DJ(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS
CS COMM 500/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIPIN PAL, PARTNER OF B.B ENGINEERS AND
CONTRACTORS …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KARAMBIR RANA BUILDERS AND ORS.
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR …DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Karambir Rana, S/o Late Sh. Tariff Rana, R/o H. No. 91

Village Bajghera, Gurugram, Haryana - 122017 being the
proprietor of M/s Karambir Rana Builders hereinafter referred
as “deponent” do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
-

1.That I, the deponent, am the proprietor of defendant no. 1 in

the present suit and am fully aware about the facts of the
present case and I am able to depose the same.

2.That the accompanying written statement has been drafted

by the counsel under my instructions and the deponent had
gone through the contents of the same, which are true and
correct to the knowledge of the deponent and from the
official records maintained in this regard. That the contents
of the accompanying written statement be read as a part &
parcel of this affidavit, which are not being repeated herein
for the sake of brevity.

Deponent
Verification

Verified at New Delhi on this ____ day of February, 2024 that

the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and nothing has been concealed there
from.

Deponent
 IN THE COURT OF SH. ANURAG SAIN, LD.
DJ(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS
CS COMM 500/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIPIN PAL, PARTNER OF B.B ENGINEERS AND
CONTRACTORS …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KARAMBIR RANA BUILDERS AND ORS.
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR …DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Deepak Rana, S/o Karambir Rana, R/o H. No. 91 Village

Bajghera, Gurugram, Haryana – 122017, hereinafter referred to
as “deponent” do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
-

1.That I, the deponent, am the Defendant No. 2 in in the

present suit and am fully aware about the facts of the present
case and I am able to depose the same.

2.That the accompanying written statement has been drafted

by the counsel under my instructions and the deponent had
gone through the contents of the same, which are true and
correct to the knowledge of the deponent and from the
official records maintained in this regard. That the contents
of the accompanying written statement be read as a part &
parcel of this affidavit, which are not being repeated herein
for the sake of brevity.

Deponent
Verification

Verified at New Delhi on this ____ day of February, 2024 that

the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and nothing has been concealed there
from.

Deponent
 IN THE COURT OF SH. ANURAG SAIN, LD.
DJ(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS
CS COMM 500/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIPIN PAL, PARTNER OF B.B ENGINEERS AND
CONTRACTORS …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KARAMBIR RANA BUILDERS AND ORS.
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR …DEFENDANTS
STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I, Karambir Rana, S/o Late Sh. Tariff Rana, R/o H. No. 91

Village Bajghera, Gurugram, Haryana - 122017 being the
proprietor of M/s Karambir Rana Builders hereinafter referred
as the ‘deponent’

1. I am proprietor of Defendant No. 1 in the above suit and

competent to swear this affidavit. I am sufficiently
conversant with the facts of the case and have also
examined all relevant documents and records in relation
thereto.
2. I say that the statements made in 1-13 of preliminary
objections paragraphs are true to my knowledge and
statements made in para 14 of preliminary objections are
based on legal advice.
3. I say that there is no false statement or concealment of
any material fact, document or record and I have included
information that is according to me, relevant for the
present suit.
 4. I say that that all documents in my power, possession,
control or custody, pertaining to the facts and
circumstances of the proceedings initiated by me have
been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the
plaint, and that I do not have any other documents in my
power, possession, control or custody.
5. I say that the above-mentioned pleading comprises of a
total of pages, each of which has been
signed by me.
6. I state that the Annexures hereto are true copies of the
documents referred to and relied upon by me.
7. I say that I am aware that for any false statement or
concealment, I shall be liable for action taken against me
under the law.

NEW DELHI
DATED 12.02.2024
Deponent

VERIFICATION
The statements made above are true to my knowledge.

Verified at New Delhi on this 12.02.2024

Deponent

IN THE COURT OF SH. ANURAG SAIN, LD.

DJ(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE DISTRICT COURTS
CS COMM 500/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIPIN PAL, PARTNER OF B.B ENGINEERS AND
CONTRACTORS …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KARAMBIR RANA BUILDERS AND ORS.
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR …DEFENDANTS
STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I, Deepak Rana, S/o Karambir Rana, R/o H. No. 91 Village

Bajghera, Gurugram, Haryana – 122017 hereinafter referred as
‘deponent’, declare as under:

1. I am proprietor of Defendant No. 1 in the above suit and

competent to swear this affidavit. I am sufficiently
conversant with the facts of the case and have also
examined all relevant documents and records in relation
thereto.
2. I say that the statements made in 1-13 of preliminary
objections paragraphs are true to my knowledge and
statements made in para 14 of preliminary objections are
based on legal advice.
3. I say that there is no false statement or concealment of
any material fact, document or record and I have included
information that is according to me, relevant for the
present suit.

4. I say that that all documents in my power, possession,

control or custody, pertaining to the facts and
circumstances of the proceedings initiated by me have
been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the
 plaint, and that I do not have any other documents in my
power, possession, control or custody.
5. I say that the above-mentioned pleading comprises of a
total of pages, each of which has been
signed by me.
6. I state that the Annexures hereto are true copies of the
documents referred to and relied upon by me.
7. I say that I am aware that for any false statement or
concealment, I shall be liable for action taken against me
under the law.

NEW DELHI
DATED 12.02.2024
Deponent

VERIFICATION
The statements made above are true to my knowledge.

Verified at New Delhi on this 12.02.2024

Deponent