PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 26 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908

 

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE (Senior Division), FIROZABAD

O. S. No.                   Of 2014

Sartaj Ahmed Khan aged about 46 year s/o Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan r/o 80, Barhi Chhapeti, Firozabad.

……………………………………..………Plaintiff

V/S

1.     Sri Kallu Khan s/o Sri Majeed Khan r/o Mohalla Kashmiri Gate, Kohinoor Road, Near Dinesh Glass, City and District Firozabad;

2.     Sri Mujib s/o Sri Jamal Uddin r/o Mohalla Shishgran, Karhal District Mainpuri;

3.     Sri Nizam s/o Sri Nasir Uddin r/o Labour Colony, City and District Firozabad;

4.     Sri Mukim s/o Sri Habib Khan r/o Taj Ganj Garhaiyya, City and District Agra;

……………………………………….Defendants           

PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 READWITH SECTION 26 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

Sir,

The Plaintiff named above most respectfully submits, as under:-

1.     That Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan, the father of the Plaintiff was the co-owner of 2/3^rd share of the house bearing Municipal No. 81, situated at Mohalla Barhi Chhapeti, City and District Firozabad and he was into the full and exclusive possession of his share. Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan has got this house from his ancestors.

2.     That on 04-09-2000, during his life time Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan has bequeathed his total share of above mentioned house no. 81, situated at Mohalla Barhi Chhapeti, City and District Firozabad to the plaintiff by executing a will duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Firozabad in Book No. III, File No. 53, Pages Nos. 149 to 154 at Serial No. 243 on 04-09-2000. A Photostat copy of this will is annexed with this plaint as Annexure – 1.

3.     That unfortunately Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan has been died on 28-12-2006 and after his demise the plaintiff has got the portion of the above mentioned house of Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan and came into the possession. The name of the plaintiff has been recorded in the records of Municipality and certified extract of record is enclose with this plaint as Annexure – 2.

4.     That the defendant no. 1 Sri Kallu Khan neither had nor has any right, title and interest in the house bearing Municipal No. 81, situated at Mohalla Barhi Chhapeti, City and District Firozabad but even after this he has executed a sale deed of 3200 square feet (297.28 square meters) land of this house on 07.01.2011 for a sale consideration of Rs. Six Lakh in the favour of defendant nos. 2 to 4 respectively Sri Mujib, Sri Nizam and Sri Mukim on the pretext of ownership received from Sri Alaf Khan s/o Sri Sipahdar Khan r/o Mohalla Chhapeti Kalan, City and District Firozabad through a gift deed (HIBAINAMA) dated 04.02.1946. This sale deed is registered in the office of sub-Registrar, Firozabad in Book No. I, File No. 586, Pages Nos. 167 to 212 at Serial No. 193 on 11-01-2011.

5.     That there was no one known as Sri Alaf Khan s/o Sri Sipahdar Khan r/o Mohalla Chhapeti Kalan, City and District Firozabad in the predecessors of Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan who could be authorized to execute a gift deed. The pretext of gift deed took by is false and wrong.

6.     That the alleged aforesaid sale deed dated 07.01.2011 executed by the defendant no. 1 Sri Kallu Khan in the favour of defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 namely Sri Mujib, Sri Nizam and Sri Mukim is ab initio void, illegal, invalid, inoperative because Sri Kallu Khan had no right and power to execute the alleged sale deed of the property of the plaintiff. The alleged aforesaid sale deed dated 07.01.2011 and registered in the office of sub-Registrar, Firozabad in Book No. I, File No. 586, Pages Nos. 167 to 212 at Serial No. 193 on 11-01-2011 is liable to be cancelled on the following grounds amongst the various other grounds: -

(A) Because the defendant no. 1, Sri Kallu Khan was not the owner of the house bearing Municipal No. 81, situated at Mohalla Barhi Chhapeti, City and District Firozabad and his name was not recorded in the municipal records as the owner, hence he had no right to execute the alleged sale deed.

(B) Because the defendant no. 1, Sri Kallu Khan did not obtain the ownership and possession of the property in suit before executing the aforesaid sale deed.

(C) Because the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit having 2/3^rd share and he is into the possession of property in suit since the date of his father Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan, without any interference from any one.

(D)Because the alleged aforesaid sale deed is ab initio void, illegal, invalid, and confers no right, title, or interest upon the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4.

(E)  Because the alleged aforesaid sale deed is not binding upon the plaintiff.

(F)  Because the plaintiff requested to Sri Kallu Khan and the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 to cancel the aforesaid sale deed themselves because they have got registered the sale deed in their name without properly perusing the title papers of Sri Kallu Khan and by misrepresentation, deceit, and coercion but the defendants did not give any heed to the humble request of plaintiff.

7.     That the alleged aforesaid sale deed dated 07.01.2011 executed by the defendant no. 1, Sri Kallu Khan in the favour of defendant no. 2, 3 and 4 is illegal, invalid and inoperative and Sri Kallu Khan had no right and power to execute the alleged sale deed of the property of the plaintiff without having title. The alleged aforesaid sale deed dated 07.01.2011 is liable to cancel.

8.     That the plaintiff first time came to know about this alleged sale deed on     .05.2014 when all the defendants reached at the property in suit to take the possession of property after disclosing the execution of above said sale deed. The plaintiff immediately came to the office of Sub-Registrar, Firozabad and applied for the certified copy of sale deed. The plaintiff got the certified copy of sale deeds in question from the office of sub-Registrar, Firozabad on      .05.2014.

9.     That after getting the certified copy of sale deed dated 07.01.2011, the plaintiff reached to the defendants and requested them to get the sale deed cancelled themselves but the defendants did not pay any heed to the humble request of plaintiff.

10.                        That the cause of action for this suit arose on       .05.2014 when the plaintiff first time came to know about the sale deed in question and further on      .05.2014 after the clear refusal of the defendants to get cancelled the sale deeds in question themselves, at Firozabad within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has full and exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit.

11.                        That the value of this suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee is Rs. 6,00,000.00 the sale consideration and market value of the property in suit and ad-valorem court fee of Rs.                    on its 1/5^th for purpose of cancellation of sale deed is being paid according to law.

PRAYER

The plaintiff therefore, prays for the judgment and decree as under: -

A.    That the Hon’ble Court will be pleased to declare the sale deed dated 07.01.2011 duly registered in the office of sub-Registrar, Firozabad in Book No. I, File No. 586, Pages Nos. 167 to 212 at Serial No. 193 on 11-01-2011 for a sale consideration of Rs. 6,00,000.00 only, executed by Sri Kallu Khan, the Defendant No. 1 in the favour of defendant no. 2, 3 and 4 as void, inoperative, cancelled and further be pleased to send the copy of the decree to the office of sub-Registrar, Firozabad for recording the cancellation.

B.     The cost of this suit will also be award in the favour of the plaintiffs and against all the defendant.

C.     Any other relief to whom this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper will also be grant to the plaintiff and against the defendants.     

DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY: -

House bearing municipal number 81 and situated at Mohalla Barhi Chhapeti City and District Firozabad as shown in the site map attached with this plaint and measured and bounded on:

EAST     BY:   House of Sri Irfan Ahamed Khan;          (Length 80 feet)

WEST    BY:   House Of Ashfaq Ahamed Khan;           (Length 80 feet)              

NORTH BY:   Road; and                                                     (Length 40 feet)                 

SOUTH  BY:  House of Sri Babu Ram.                            (Length 40 feet)

Total area 3200 square feet.                                         

PLAINTIFF

 

VERIFICATION: - Verified that the content of paragraph No. 01 to 09 of this plaint is base on the personal knowledge and belief of the plaintiff while the content of paragraph No. 10 and 11 of this plaint is base on the legal advice given to me and I believe to this advice to be true and correct.

            Verified on this       day of                   2014 at District & Sessions Court Compound, Firozabad.                                                           

PLAINTIFF

    

 

THROUGH

 

 

(PRAVEEN KUMAR BHATNAGER)

  LL. M., ADVOCATE

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH

 

M.A. No: _______of 200X

                                                              Appellants

 

 

Versus

 

1.  V Driver

  

 

2.  B Owner  

 

3. Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

   13 Old Palasia, Indore.                            Respondents

 

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST ORDER DATED 00.00.200X PASSED BY THE LD. COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL IN CLAIM PETITION NO.113 OF 200X FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION TO RS.00,00,000/-.

 

Sir,

Following appeal is presented as per rule:-

Brief facts of the case:

1.  That on 02.11.200X appellant was riding scooter No. MP 13_________as pillion and was going to Dewas from Ujjain.  When the scooter reached at Matana Chandesra road on Ujjain – Dewas Road, Opposite Party No.1, who was driving vehicle no. MP-_____rashly and negligently, hit the scooter whereby Appellant and A received a lot of injuries.  A report was lodged to the Police about the incident. Rod has been inserted in the right hand of the Appellant. The appellant received fracture as a result thereof the appellant is unable to lift his hand. And there is fracture in the right leg below the west and knee and rod has been inserted there. As a result thereof the length of leg is shortened. Due to the injuries the appellant is unable to walk without help of any support. The Appellant has suffered his memory. An eye of the Appellant has also got damaged. As a result of the accident the appellant was forced to keep his shop closed for his treatment and the Appellant has been able to operate his shop only recently as his financial condition became very miserable. The appellant has presented Claim Petition in regard of the accident which was numbered as Petition No.___ of 200X wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 00.00.200X awarded a compensation of Rs.x,x5,x82/- which is very inappropriate. Thus the present appeal is filed within a period of limitation excluding time taking in procuring certified copy of order.

Grounds of appeal: 

 

1.    That the order dated 00.00.200X as passed by the Second Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dewas is against the law and liable to be set aside.

 

2.    That the Second Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dewas has not awarded the entire expenses incurred.  The bill for about Rs.xx,000/- as presented by the appellant on account of expenses on operation conducted for four times has not been considered.  Besides that no other amount has been awarded.  He had been got operated at Indore and he had got treatment at Delhi also. During the period he remained admitted in the hospital attendants used to be there for his care and on that account the appellant has to spend Rs.xx,000/-.  On this ground also the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced.

 

3.    That Second Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dewas has awarded minimum amount on loss of leave and loss of income in award dated 00.00.200X in Claim Petition No.____ of 200X, therefore compensation is liable to be enhanced.  When Doctor has certified that the appellant has suffered xx% permanent disability and when the appellant was unable to walk without walker and is unable to speak properly even before the Court also. In those circumstances the court should have awarded compensation considering full permanent disability. Therefore, the award as passed without consideration of the same is liable to be enhanced.

 

4.    That Second Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dewas vide order dated 00.00.200X in Claim Petition No.____ of 200X has awarded no compensation on account of permanent disability suffered by the appellant whereas leg of the Appellant has shortened and his one eye has been damaged. He is unable to the life of companion.  No compensation has been awarded to the appellant on damages suffered on that account, therefore the compensation is liable to be enhanced.

 

5.    That the Second Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dewas vide order dated 00.00.200X has awarded no compensation on account of mental and physical pain, therefore the compensation is liable to be enhanced.

 

6.    That the appellant be allowed to raise any other ground at the time of argument.

 

PRAYER:

Therefore the appellant by way of this appeal prays that the appeal be accepted and a compensation of Rs.0x,xx,000/- be awarded with costs of this litigation as well as other litigations against the respondents.  The appellant may also be awarded an interest from the date of presentation of this appeal till realisation of the amount.

 

Dated: 01.0x.200X                                  

Appellant

                                    Through

Counsel

 

OPENING SHEET FOR CIVIL APPEALS

 

 

HCD/A-1

 

OPENING SHEET FOR CIVIL APPEALS

(Order 41, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, 1908)

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

 

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

(Civil Appellate Side)

 

Regular_________________________Appeal No.________________________of 19

 

ORIGINAL SUIT

FIRST APPEAL

Date of filing appeal in High court

Value for purposes of Court –fee

Amount of Court- fee on petition

Instituted

Decided

Instituted

Decided

Court

Date

Court

Date

Court

Date

Court

Date

 

Presented by _____________________________________________________________(Name of party, Advocate, or agent, filing Appeal)

Appellant (plaintiff or defendant)___________________________________________________

Respondent (plaintiff or defendant)_________________________________________________

Order of first Court and date_______________________________________________________

Appellate Court and date_________________________________________________________

Confirming, reversing or modifying_________________________________________________

Original claim as given in the plaint_________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Claim in appeal (stating whether the appeal is from a decree/order)________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Enactment and Section under which the appeal lies_________________________

Prise:   25  Paise

Draft of Interim Injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC

 

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, AHMEDABAD

Civil Suit No.    7034/2019

 

 

…Plaintiff

Vs.

…Defendants

An application for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code

1.   The Plaintiff has filed the suit for (mention the purpose for eg recovery of possession of the disputed property).

2.   That the disputed property (Proper description of the suit property with facts ascertaining unquestionable legal authority of the plaintiff) has been unlawfully kept out of the possession of the plaintiff (or any other reason as per the case).

3.   Start with the chain of events that has led to the filing of the present suit. (This should be divided into subsequent sub paras to enable a clear understanding of the events).

4.   Mention the fact that the chain of events establish a prima facie case and further investigation or action is needed.

5.   A reason that clearly states the balance of favour in plaintiff’s side eg. The disputed property is the only means of income that the plaintiff’s family earns income from and dispossession would lead to unparalleled hardships.

6.   Irreparable damage will be caused which wouldn’t be compensated in monetary terms. (The reason might include mental trauma and emotional hurt).

7.   PRAYER: The plaintiff, therefore, prays that your Honour finds it fit to deliver a show-cause notice to the opposite party putting forward the reasons why the injunction shouldn’t be granted. Pending hearing of such injunction petition, it is prayed that an interim injunction order is passed to restrain the defendants from causing any harm to the disputed property.

 

 

PLAINTIFF (Signature):                                         ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF                                                              

PLACE:

DATE:

 

ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF:                                                                   

 

SCHEDULE

Attach a Schedule including all the documents containing the documents related to the property and to substantiate other facts mentioned in the application.

 

AFFIDAVIT

An affidavit is an oath of truthfulness for the facts that have been mentioned in the plaint in a written form. No penal action arises in case of non-inclusion of a fact that wasn’t a part of the plaintiff’s knowledge.    

 

maintainability application in consumer case by the opposite party

 

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA UNIT-III

Tramline Building ( 1^st Floor )

18, Judges Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata - 700027

 

 

MA no. _____________of 2021

In

Consumer Case no. CC/197/2020

 

 

In the matter of:

Mr. Kisore Dixit, Son of Late Gaya Dhar Dixit, residing at premises being no. 40F, Chetla Road, Police Station – Chetla, Kolkata - 700027.

....Complainant

 

      -versus-

 

1.   M/s. AG Construction, a proprietorship firm having its office at 90, Santosh Roy Road, Police Station – Haridevpur, Kolkata – 700008, represented by its Proprietor  Sri Soumen Chakraborty, Son of Ashoke Chakraborty residing at 4/4B, Motilal Gupta Road, Post Office – Barisha, Police Station – Haridevpur, Kolkata – 700008.

 

2.   Smt. Rekha Nariwal, daughter of Ramprasad Nariwal, residing at premises being no. 27E/12, Babu Ram Ghosh Road, Police Station – Regent Park, Kolkata - 700040.

 

           ... Opposite Parties

 

 

MAINTAINABILITY APPLICATION

 

The humble petition on behalf of the Opposite Party no.1 Sri Soumen Chakraborty:

 

Most Respectfully Sheweth as under:

 

1.   That the Petitioner has been served with the purported copy of petition, made by the Complainant. The Petitioner have gone through the contents of the purported petition and made replies to the same, and submitted his written version, in the present consumer proceeding.

 

2.   That the Opposite Party no. 1, M/s. A.G. Construction, a Proprietorship Firm, having its office at premises being no. 90, Santosh Roy Road, Kolkata – 700008, Police Station – Haridevpur, District – South 24 Parganas, represented by its Proprietor Shri Soumen Chakraborty, Son of Shri Ashok Chakraborty.

 

3.   That one agreement for sale Dated 15^th day of July’ 2016 has been entered between the parties, i.e. the complainant and the Opposite party no. 1 Sri. Soumen Chakraborty and the Opposite Party no.2, herein Smt. Rekha Nariwal daughter of Sri Ramprasad Nariwal, being the Land owner of the scheduled property and the Opposite party no 1 Sri. Soumen Chakraborty is a developer. The said agreement for sale entered between the parties more particularly with the complainant, herein, cause such agreement in respect of ALL THAT one Self contained flat consisting of two bed room, one toilet, one kitchen cum – dinning having an area of 600 Square feet super built up area including super built charge more or less lying or situate on the Ground floor of the building together with proportionate undivided share of the land underneath the building room and flat along with easement, quasi easement right and other benefits, over the common passage for common use, occupation and enjoyment in the said building at Premises No. 124/2, Kailash Ghosh Road, Police Station – Haridevpur, Kolkata – 700008, ward no. 123 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, within the District of South 24 Parganas, for the consideration value as of Rs. 12,50,000/- ( Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Fifty Thousand ) only.

 

4.   That the complainant had paid Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) only, on the date of execution of the said Agreement for Sale dated 15th day of July’ 2016 and thereafter Rs. 10,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lac and fifty thousand) only, has been made by the complainant herein through his banker United Bank of India, M.L. Gupta Road Branch, in the month of October’ 2017, thus total sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- ( Rupees Eleven Lakhs ) only, has been paid by the Complainant herein, and thereafter consequently the Complainant variably failed to make payment to the opposite party, as agreed upon, and therefore this opposite party seeks to get the balance consideration money as of Rs. 1,50,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh and fifty thousand ) only, from the Complainant with interest being 12% interest per annum on such balance money as of Rs. 1,50,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh and fifty ) only, and thereafter on receipt of such balance money and the interest thereon in terms of the agreement dated 15th day of July’ 2016, the opposite party will hand over the physical possession of the subjected flat and cause endeavour of the execution and registration of Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant at the Complainant’s Cost and expenses. The Complainant is a defaulter in making payment in terms of the agreement for sale dated 15th day of July’ 2016, and therefore at the complainant’s behest this opposite party suffering a lot for such tenure till date. This is the complainant who denied the performance in terms of the agreement for Sale dated 15th day of July’ 2016. The Complainant resort the present consumer proceeding to take benefit of his own wrong, which is contrary to the established prescribed provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019.

5.   That it is pertinent to mention that the complainant assessed his petition of complaint being valued as of Rs. 20,15,000/- in paragraph number 16 at page no. 9, and the fees inadequetly has been paid thereon by the complainant, which is not correct, the valuation of his application is not correct in terms of the provision of Section 34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act' 2019, which reproduced as follows :

 

“34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:

Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.”

 

Thus in view of the terms of the provision of Section 34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, the petition of Complaint of the applicant / petitioner / complainant should be as of Rs. 12,50,000/- ( Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Fifty Thousand ) only, being calculated as Rs. 12,50,000/- ( Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Fifty Thousand ) only, being the value of the goods or services paid as consideration.

 

Therefore the fees paid thereon is also inadequate in terms of provision of Rule 7 (1) of the Consumer Protection ( Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions Rules ) 2020.

 

6.   That in view of the fact as stated in foregoing paragraph herein, this opposite party seeks the dismissal of the present petition of complaint at once with exemplary cost on the complainant in the interest of administration of justice.

 

7.   That unless the Hon’ble Commission take into consideration about the value of goods or services paid as consideration in term of the provision of Section 34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, and dismissed or reject the application of the complainant with exemplary cost thereon, this opposite party will highly prejudice and suffer with irreparable loss and injury thereof.

 

8.   That the balance of convenience and inconvenience are in favour of the this opposite party.

 

9.   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 allow this application and to dismissed or rejected the petition of complaint of the complainant which has registered as CC/ 197 / 2020, in the interest of administration of justice, and or to pass such other necessary order or orders as your Honouir 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, Sri Soumen Chakraborty, being the Opposite Party, in the instant Complaint matter, states that I am well conversant with all the material facts and circumstances as stated in the foregoing paragraphs of the application and I am well acquainted thereto. And I verify and sign this instant Written Version, as on _______________2021, at Alipore, Kolkata - 700027.

 

 

 

The Opposite Party

 

Identified by me,

 

Advocate.

Prepared in my Chamber,

 

Advocate.

Dated : _______________________2021.

Place : Alipore, Kolkata.

 

A F F I D A V I T

 

I, Sri Soumen Chakraborty, Son of Ashoke Chakraborty, aged about _____years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation Business, and Proprietor of M/s. AG Construction, a proprietorship concern having its office at at 90, Santosh Roy Road, James Long Crossing, Kolkata – 700008, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows :

 

1.   That I being the Opposite Party no. 1, in the instant case being filed by the Complainant, and I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the said case.

                                This is true to my knowledge.

 

2.   That the statements made in paragraphs 1 to __________of my application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and the rests are my humble submissions before your Honour’s Commission.

 

 

 

 

D E P O N E N T

 

Identified by me

 

 

Advocate.

Prepared in my Chamber,

 

 

Advocate.

Date : ____________2021.

Place : Alipore, Kolkata.

 

N O T A R Y