In the 2nd
Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baruipur, South 24 Parganas
Money Suit No.
314 of 2023
In the matter of ;
Sri
Dilip Mondal,
_________Plaintiff
-
Versus –
Sri Apurba Naskar
__________defendant
Written Statement on behalf of the Defendant to the
Suit filed by the Plaintiff
Most
respectfully showeth;
The
defendant above named respectfully submits as follows;
1.
That the summon of the present
suit was received by a person other than the defendant, who failed to inform
the defendant in due time. However, upon becoming aware of the pendency of the
suit, the defendant has taken prompt and sincere steps to file the present
Written Statement before this Hon’ble Court.
2.
That the defendant states he has
not received a proper and complete copy of the plaint or the documents relied
upon by the plaintiff. The copy of the plaint which came to the defendant's
knowledge appears to contain handwritten modifications or interpolations, which
raises serious doubts about its authenticity and proper service.
3.
That the defendant, therefore,
humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court to direct the plaintiff to supply a
complete and legible set of the documents relied upon in the plaint, so as to
enable the defendant to respond appropriately, including through filing an
additional written statement if necessary.
4.
That at the outset
itself, the defendant denies each and every allegations leveled by the
plaintiff against the defendant in the present suit. The plaintiff has filed
the present suit against the defendant with malafide intentions and ulterior
motive. The allegations leveled by the plaintiff in the present suit are
completely false and frivolous and the same are merely made with the intention
to harass the defendant.
5.
The allegations made by
plaintiff in its plaint are denied as false. The plaintiff has not approached
this Hon’ble court with clean hands. The plaintiff has with malafide intentions
concealed various material facts and information from this Hon’ble court and only
presented the facts that are favourable to him.
6.
That the instant suit
being devoid of any cause of action against the defendant and its liable to be
dismissed with punitive costs. It is submitted that the suit is misconceived
and is based on suppression and incorrect facts and on this ground alone the
suit is liable to be dismissed.
7.
That
the plaint is not in the prescribe form as emphasized in the Civil Procedure
Code’ 1908. Therefore the plaint is liable to be dismissed inlimnie.
8.
That
the plaint is without any accrued cause of action in presenting the plaint
before the learned Court. Therefore the plaint is liable to be dismissed inlimnie.
9.
That
the present plaint has no lawful claim. Therefore the plaint is liable to be
dismissed inlimnie.
10.
That
the present plaint has not been placed even on any true facts and affairs, if
any. Therefore the plaint is liable to be dismissed inlimnie.
11.
That
the present plaint is motivated, harassed, and without any competency.
Therefore the plaint is liable to be dismissed inlimnie.
12.
That
the present plaint is suffering with the non-joinder & misjoinder of the
necessary parties. Therefore the plaint is liable to be dismissed inlimnie.
13.
That
before dealing with the paragraph wise comments. The defendant furnishing the
facts for appropriate adjudication of the above referred suit in the interest
of administration of justice;
(a) That the Agreement for Sale dated
05/01/2013, entered by and between the parties are in respect of Land measuring
about 13 Satak out of 60 Satak, which comes as 7.865 Katha, comprised in R.S.
Dag no. 355, L.R. Dag no. 355, L.R. Dag no. 382, under R.S. Khatian No. 169, L.
R. Khatian No. 552, J.L. No. 52, under the Limits of Ward no. 8 of the Rajpur Sonarpur
Municipality, Mouza – Tegharia, Police Station – Sonarpur, District South 24
Parganas, against the Consideration money as of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
and Fifty Thousand) only, per Katha, which come in total as of Rs. 51,12,250/-
(Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Twelve Thousand and Two Hundred Fifty) only for 7.865
Katha Land of Shali nature, in terms of the said Agreement for Sale dated 5th
day of January’ 2013.
(b) That further the said Agreement dated
05/01/2013, stated that at the time of execution of the said indenture a sum of
Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only has been arranged to be paid by the
plaintiff, and thereafter within a period of next Ten days from the said date
of execution of the said Agreement for Sale the plaintiff has been agreed to
pay another sum of money being Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) only, and
thereafter in terms of the said Agreement for Sale dated 05/01/2013, the plaintiff
has agreed to pay the entire balance money within a period ended on 28/02/2013.
The said balance money has come as of Rs. 31,12,250/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs
Twelve Thousand and Two Hundred Fifty) only, which the plaintiff did not pay
and breach the terms of the said Agreement for Sale dated 05/01/2013.
Pertinently, the contents of the terms elaborately described therein shows much
specifically that the time is essence of the said agreement for sale dated
05/01/2013, therefore in a very short span specifically on the day and date
fixed and agreed therein to perform in respect of the payment of the
consideration money and conveyance of the said immovable property in favour of the
plaintiff, and the entire episode has to be completed with a period ended on 28th
day of February’ 2013; But the plaintiff did not perform the said terms of the
Agreement for Sale dated 05/01/2013.
(c) That the Plaintiff has given a
Declaration in his own writing wherein he accepted his inability in making the
payments in terms of the said Agreement for Sale dated 05/01/2013; but the said
declaration has not been given earlier, therefore the defendant was not able to
entered into any other contract to sale, the said immovable property to any
other intending purchaser; thus the defendant was stuck into the said agreement
for sale for so many years, and sustained huge monetary losses and for such
reasons alone the defendant is not able to sale, the said immovable property
and on receipt of sale proceeds will pay back the Plaintiff; But in present
situation as the Plaintiff has already been in receipt of sum of money as of
Rs. 2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand) only, and
therefore, Pertinently, the plaintiff will not get anything being rest sum of
money which has been apportioned to losses and damages sustained by the
defendant, and with this fact the plaintiff has to accept the reality and do
not ask anything from the defendant by way of any communication, whatsoever.
(d) That in the given facts &
situation, the plaintiff is not entitled to ask for any money, so far from the
defendant.
14.
Without waiving any of the
aforesaid Objections and Facts and fully relying thereupon and without
prejudice to the same. Now, the defendant deals with the specific paragraphs of
the said Plaint, in seriatim as hereunder.
- The Plaint
is not maintainable either in facts or in its present form and the said plaint
is speculative, harassing, motivated, concocted and baseless as is barred
by the Principles of Law and hence same is liable to be rejected at once,
with cost.
- Save and except the statements made in
the said plaint, which are matter of record, the defendant denies each and
every allegations contained in the said plaint and calls upon the plaintiff
to strict proof of the said allegations, in terms of the facts as well as
in terms of the Law.
- With the
reference to the statements of the paragraph no. 1, 2,
3, 4, 5,
& 6, of the plaint the defendant is admitted the
statements of the paragraph no. 1, 2,
3, 4, 5,
& 6, only in part which are matter of the record
and denied and disputed the statement of the paragraph no. 1, 2,
3, 4, 5,
& 6, in part. The defendant reiterated the
statement made in the paragraph no. 13.
The defendant states that
the Agreement
for Sale dated 05/01/2013, entered by and between the parties are in
respect of Land measuring about 13 Satak out of 60 Satak, which comes as
7.865 Katha, comprised in R.S. Dag no. 355, L.R. Dag no. 355, L.R. Dag no.
382, under R.S. Khatian No. 169, L. R. Khatian No. 552, J.L. No. 52, under
the Limits of Ward no. 8 of the Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, Mouza –
Tegharia, Police Station – Sonarpur, District South 24 Parganas, against
the Consideration money as of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Fifty
Thousand) only, per Katha, which come in total as of Rs. 51,12,250/-
(Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Twelve Thousand and Two Hundred Fifty) only for
7.865 Katha Land of Shali nature, in terms of the said Agreement for Sale
dated 5th day of January’ 2013. The said Agreement dated
05/01/2013, stated that at the time of execution of the said indenture a
sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only has been arranged to be
paid by the plaintiff, and thereafter within a period of next Ten days
from the said date of execution of the said Agreement for Sale the
plaintiff has been agreed to pay another sum of money being Rs.
15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) only, and thereafter in terms of the
said Agreement for Sale dated 05/01/2013, the plaintiff has agreed to pay
the entire balance money within a period ended on 28/02/2013. The said
balance money has come as of Rs. 31,12,250/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs
Twelve Thousand and Two Hundred Fifty) only, which the plaintiff did not
pay and breach the terms of the said Agreement for Sale dated 05/01/2013.
Pertinently, the contents of the terms elaborately described therein shows
much specifically that the time is essence of the said agreement for sale
dated 05/01/2013, therefore in a very short span specifically on the day
and date fixed and agreed therein to perform in respect of the payment of
the consideration money and conveyance of the said immovable property in
favour of the plaintiff, and the entire episode has to be completed with a
period ended on 28th day of February’ 2013; But the plaintiff
did not perform the said terms of the Agreement for Sale dated 05/01/2013.
Subsequently, the Plaintiff has given a Declaration in his own writing
wherein he accepted his inability in making the payments in terms of the
said Agreement for Sale dated 05/01/2013; but the said declaration has not
been given earlier, therefore the defendant was not able to entered into
any other contract to sale, the said immovable property to any other
intending purchaser; thus the defendant was stuck into the said agreement
for sale for so many years, and sustained huge monetary losses and for
such reasons alone the defendant is not able to sale, the said immovable
property and on receipt of sale proceeds will pay back the Plaintiff; But
in present situation as the Plaintiff has already been in receipt of sum
of money as of Rs. 2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand)
only, and therefore, Pertinently, the plaintiff will not get anything
being rest sum of money which has been apportioned to losses and damages
sustained by the defendant, and with this fact the plaintiff has to accept
the reality and do not ask anything from the defendant by way of any
communication, whatsoever. In the given facts & situation, the plaintiff
is not entitled to ask for any money, so far from the defendant.
- With the
reference to the statements of the paragraph no. 7, 8, 9, & 10, of
the plaint the defendant is admitted the statements of the paragraph no. 7, 8, 9, & 10, only
in part which are matter of the record and denied and disputed the
statement of the paragraph no. 7,
8, 9, & 10, in part. The defendant
reiterated the statement made in the paragraph no. 13.
The defendant states that
the statements
related to the payments made by the plaintiff, are not correct as money
has not been paid by Cheque only, and no where the plaintiff stated about
the source of such money as to from where and whom the said money has ever
been acquired by him; thus the money which do not have any accountability
or sources of income of the plaintiff or it’s has ever disclosed to the
concerned Government Authority i.e. Income Tax, etc. the said money cannot
asked by the plaintiff. Pertinently, no legal enforceable debt has been
asked by the plaintiff. It is well founded
that the defendant has given money to the Plaintiff by way of Bank
Transaction, therefore the money which has been transacted by the
defendant to the plaintiff, cannot denied and the same is acceptable
universally. There is no occasions has ever been
described or given with any substantial evidentiary proof of documents
with the said letter dated 26-09-2023, by which the plaintiff can well
founded to show that he has ever entitled to ask for a sum of Rs.
7,25,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand) only, from the
defendant; Thus the plaintiff is not entitled to get such money being sum
of Rs. 7,25,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand) only, from
the defendant. Earlier no notice or letter has
ever been received by the defendant therefore the defendant was not able
to reply any such letter as stated by the plaintiff. The occasion of not
serving the said earlier letter by the Postal Authority is purely concern
of the Postal Authority, and the defendant is no way responsible for the
same; thus any allegations in this regard is baseless and not acceptable
in its entirety by the defendant.
- With the
reference to the statement of the paragraph no. 11 & 12 of the plaint
the defendant do not admit. The defendant disputed and denied the
statement specifically and put the plaintiff on strict proof thereof. The
defendant reiterated the statement made in the paragraph no. 13. The
defendant states that there is no cause of action has ever been arose
against the defendant. The present above referred suit is without any
cause of action, which has ever been accrued in instituting the present
above referred suit by the plaintiff against the defendant herein. The
defendant has not indulged into any alleged claimed by the plaintiff in
the above referred suit.
- That the
relief claimed by the plaintiff is unlawful and since such claimed has not
been based on the lawful manner and the circumstances ever arise. The said
claim has not ever been placed by the plaintiff in the clean hand. The
plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief either in terms of the fact or
in the terms of the law. The present above referred suit is vague and
frivolous should be dismissed inlimnie.
- That
pertinently Once the limitation period has expired, neither acknowledgment nor
part payment revives the limitation unless made within the original limitation period. Key Legal Provisions to Consider ;
1.
Section 18 of
the Limitation Act – Acknowledgment in Writing
·
If before expiry of the original limitation period, the debtor makes
a written acknowledgment of
liability, a fresh limitation period of 3 years starts from that date.
·
But here, the acknowledgment/payment
came after 10 years (i.e., after expiry of the original limitation
period), so Section 18 does not
apply.
2.
Section 19 –
Part Payment of Debt
·
If part payment of a debt is made before the expiration of the limitation period, the limitation is
extended from the date of that payment.
·
But again, in present case involves payment after 10 years, so Section 19 also does not help.
Since the agreement ceased in 2013, the limitation to file suit (absent acknowledgment
or payment within 3 years) expired in 2016. The payment made in 2023, after limitation had already
expired, does not revive
the limitation period. Hence, the alleged demand is prima facie
barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
- The
defendant crave leave before the Learned Court to place his additional
written statement in stating the facts, which has left due to paucity of
time in preparing the present Written Statement.
- That in
the given facts and circumstances the present suit is not sustainable
under the law and therefore the defendant seeks dismissal of the suit inlimnie.
- Unless,
the Learned Court dismissed the above referred suit the defendant will
highly prejudice and suffer with irreparable
loss and injury.
- That
this application is made bonafide and in the interest of administration of
justice.
It is therefore prayed that your
Honour would graciously be pleased to accept this Written Statement and to
dismissed the present Suit being Money Suit no. 314 of 2023, in the interest of
administration of Justice, and /or to pass such other necessary order or orders
as Your Honour may deem, fit, and proper for the end of Justice.
And for this act of kindness, the
Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
Verification
I, Apurba Naskar, being the defendant
in the present Suit. I am well acquainted and conversant with the material
facts as stated in the forgoing paragraphs of my Written Statement. I, verify
& sign the Written Statement on 17th day of May’ 2025, at Baruipur
Court Premises.
I, Apurba Naskar, Son of Sri Dulal
Chandra Naskar, aged about 35 years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation Business,
residing at Village – Tegharia, Post Office – Ramkrishna Pally, Police Station
Narendrapur, Kolkata – 700150, District South 24 Parganas, do hereby solemnly
affirm and says as follows;
1.
That I am the defendant in the present
Suit matter. I am well acquainted and conversant with the material facts of the
present Suit. I am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.
That the statements of the paragraph
number 13, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. The statements of
the paragraph number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 13, derived
from the copy of the plaint, and the rests are my humble submissions before the
Learned Court.
The statements made above are true to my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT
Identified by me,
Advocate
Prepared in my Chamber,
Advocate
Date : 17th day of May’
2025;
Place :Baruipur Court Premises;
N O T A R Y
No comments:
Post a Comment