Written Objection on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the Plaint, by the Plaintiff

 

In the Court of the Learned District Judge,

Alipore,

South 24 Parganas

 

                     Title Suit No. 09   Of 2024

                  

                                                          In the matter of ;

Sri Subhro Ghosal,

__________Plaintiff

 

-          Versus –

 

Subhadeep Mazumder,

          _______Defendant

 

Written Objection on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the Plaint, by the Plaintiff;

 

The humble petition of the above named Plaintiff, most respectfully;

Sheweth as under;

 

1.   That the Plaintiff instituted the above referred Suit for Permanent Injunction restraining Infringement of Copyrights, Damages, Rendition of Accounts of Profits, Delivery Up, etc. under Section 55 of the Copyright Act 1957, against the Defendant, before the Learned Court. The Suit is valued at Rs. 1,00,600/- (Rupees One Lakh and Six Hundred) only.

 

2.   That the defendant was appearing in the above referred suit on 20/01/2025, by placing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure’ 1908, for rejection of Plaint on service copy to the Plaintiff. The plaintiff on bare perusal of the contents and purports of the said application found that the said application is not maintainable and sustainable in the Law. The plaintiff would states necessary facts in the followings;

 

(a)  The Suit is valued at Rs. 1,00,600/- (Rupees One Lakh and Six Hundred) only;

 

(b) Even, if a cease and desist notice demanded ₹50,00,000, the fact that the suit is valued at ₹1,00,000 cannot be a ground for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC;

 

(c)  Under Order VII Rule 11, a plaint can be rejected only if (1) It does not disclose a cause of action, (2) The relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff fails to correct it, (3) The suit is barred by law, & (4) It is not properly stamped, and the deficiency is not corrected;

 

(d) Since valuation of the suit is the plaintiff's prerogative, merely having a higher amount in the cease and desist notice does not automatically mean the suit should be rejected;

 

(e)  The valuation of a suit at ₹1,00,000, despite a prior cease and desist notice demanding ₹50,00,000, is not, by itself, a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;

 

(f)   The Supreme Court clarified that a plaint cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit. The determination under Order VII Rule 11 should focus on whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or is barred by law, not on the potential success of the plaintiff's claims, decided in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19018/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-10-2022 in CRN No. 3324/2022 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) Gurdev Singh v. Harvinder Singh on 09-11-2022;

 

Server Copy of the Order dated 09-11-2022, passed in Gurdev Singh v. Harvinder Singh Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19018/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-10-2022 in CRN No. 3324/2022 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh), by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – “A”.

 

3.   Without waiving any of the aforesaid Objections and Facts and fully relying thereupon and without prejudice to the same. Now, the Plaintiff deals with the specific paragraphs of the said application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, in seriatim as hereunder.

 

4.   The application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is not maintainable either in facts or in its present form and the said application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC 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.

 

5.    Save and except the statements made in the said application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which are matter of record, the Plaintiff denies each and every allegations contained in the said application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and calls upon the defendant to strict proof of the said allegations, in terms of the facts as well as in terms of the Law.

 

6.   That with references to the statements made in paragraph nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, this Plaintiff specifically and categorically denies and disputes the contents and purport of those paragraphs, and put to the defendant to the strict proof thereof. The Plaintiff repeat and reiterate the statements made in paragraph no.2, herein above. The Plaintiff says that since valuation of the suit is the plaintiff's prerogative, merely having a higher amount in the cease and desist notice does not automatically mean the suit should be rejected. The valuation of a suit at ₹1,00,000, despite a prior cease and desist notice demanding ₹50,00,000, is not, by itself, a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

 

7.   That with references to the statements made in paragraph nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9, of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, this Plaintiff specifically and categorically denies and disputes the contents and purport of those paragraphs, and put to the defendant to the strict proof thereof. The Plaintiff repeat and reiterate the statements made in paragraph no.2, herein above. The Plaintiff says that the present Suit is not barred by any Law under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code’ 1908. The Commercial Courts Act 2015, is not applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the Plaint. Even the defendant removed the infringed video from the Youtube Channel, but at the same time after few days later it has been observed that the defendant through some other person trying to play the said purported infringed video through the different means of Social media i.e. Facebook, etc.

 

8.   That the cause of action in the present suit first arose on 14^th day of November’ 2024, while the Plaintiff came across a Short Film on a Youtube Channel www.youtube.com/@thebreathingcelluloid9070 Short Film : THE VOICE ARTIST, by Subhadeep Mazumder, Published on 9^th November’ 2024, vide URL of alleged infringing video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC9KlgrwyAw which contained the contents and purports truly consisted in the plaintiff’s literature/ drama work which has been cited as “TELEPHONE” having Registration No. L-136483/2023, dated 21^st day of November’ 2023. The Cause of action arose again while the Plaintiff informed such facts of infringing the copyright to Youtube authority concern and thereby the Youtube withheld the said Short film for the time being. The cause of action further arose while the Plaintiff arranged to sent Cease and Desist Notice dated 25^th November’ 2024 to the defendant and the defendant replied on the said notice by Letter dated 28^th day of November’ 2024. The Cause of action is a continuing one and shall continue until the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction of this Learned Court.

 

9.   That this Learned Court has jurisdiction by virtue of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, since the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Learned Court, and also confers the jurisdiction on this Learned Court as the Plaintiff is residing and carrying his business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Learned Court. Further the Learned Court has jurisdiction by virtue of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, since the defendant is carrying on his business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Learned Court by way of URL of alleged infringing video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC9KlgrwyAw which contained the contents and purports truly consisted in the plaintiff’s literature/ drama work which has been cited as “TELEPHONE” having Registration No. L-136483/2023, dated 21^st day of November’ 2023.

 

10.               That the relief sought for in the said application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, are wholly without jurisdiction and the same should be negated by this Learned Court.

 

11.               That there is no merit in the said application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

 

12.               That this Written Objection is made bonafide and in the interest of administration of Justice.

 

 

It is therefore prayed that your Honour would graciously be pleased to accept the written objection of the plaintiff and to reject or dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure’ 1908, 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, Subhro Ghosal, being the Plaintiff herein, made this written objection on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code’ 1908, filed by the defendant. I am acquainted and conversant with the Material facts as stated in the foregoing paragraphs of the Written Objection. I verify and sign this Written Objection on 5^th day of March’ 2025, at Alipore Judges’ Court premises.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Affidavit

 

I, Subhro Ghosal, Son of Uday Sankar Ghosal, aged about 41 years, residing at Premises being No. 331, Jyotish Roy Road, Kolkata - 700053, Police Station – Jadavpur, District – South 24 Parganas, and also at “Appayan Apartment” Ground Floor, Flat-GC, Premises no. 108/11/(50), Purbachal Road (North), Haltu, Police Station – Kasba, Kolkata - 700078, do hereby solemnly affirm and says as follows;

 

1.   I am the Plaintiff in the present suit instituted by me against the defendant. I am acquainted and conversant with the material facts. I am competent to swear this affidavit.

This is true to the best of my knowledge & belief.

 

2.   The statements made in the paragraph nos. 1, 2, & 8, 9, are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and the rests are my humble submissions before the Learned Court.

This is true to the best of my knowledge & belief.

 

3.   The statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

 

 

 

 

DEPONENT

Identified by me,

 

Advocate

 

Prepared in my chamber,

 

 

Advocate

Date : 5^th day of March’ 2025;

Place : Alipore Judges’ Court

 

NOTARY

 

 

In the Court of the Learned District Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas

 

                                         Title Suit No. 09 Of 2024

                  

                                                          In the matter of ;

Sri Subhro Ghosal,

__________Plaintiff

 

-          Versus –

 

Subhadeep Mazumder,

                             _______Defendant

 

 

 

 

Written Objection on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the Plaint, by the Plaintiff;

 

 

                                          

 

Advocate – on – Record for the Plaintiff;

 

Sanjib Saha, Advocate

High Court Calcutta

Chamber : P-16, Purbasha Pally, Dr. A.K. Paul Road, Kolkata – 700034, Mobile No. 9051570268, 7003781930, Email : sanjibsaha.smc@gmail.com

Reply on Affidavit in Consumer Case

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION KOLKATA UNIT-III(South),West Bengal 18, Judges Court Road, Kolkata 700027

Consumer Complaint no. 60 of 2023

 

                                                         

In the matter of :

 

Sri Sudam Saha, Son of Late TirthabasiSaha, Resident of 438, Laskarpur, Peyarabagan, Post Office – Laskarpur, Police Station – Narendrapur, Kolkata – 700153, District South 24 Parganas,

                                                                             ________Complainant

 

-      Versus –

 

1)   M/s. S.K.S. Developer, Proprietor Shri Sujit Saha, having its Office at Premises being no. E-185, Ramgarh, Post Office – Naktala, Police Station – Netaji Nagar, Kolkata – 700047.

 

2)   Shri Sujit Saha, Son of Late Amar Chandra Saha, residing at Premises being no. 521, Peyara Bagan, Post Office – Laskarpur, Police Station – Narendrapur, Kolkata – 700153.

                   _________Respondents

 

 

REPLY ON AFFIDAVIT

OF RESPONDENTS

M/s. S.K.S. Developer and Shri Sujit Saha,

 

 

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sujit Saha, Son of Late Amar Chandra Saha, aged about 56 years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation Business, residing at Premises being no. 521, Peyara Bagan, Post Office – Laskarpur, Police Station – Narendrapur, Kolkata – 700153, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows;

1.   I am Proprietor of the Opposite Party number 1, M/s. SKS Developer. I am the Opposite Party number 2, in the present Consumer Proceeding. I am acquainted and conversant with the material facts and Competent to swear this affidavit.

 

2.   I am in receipt of the Questionnaire being series of questions put forward by the Complainant, in the present consumer case, against the Evidence on Affidavit submitted by me. I have gone through the questions of the Complainant and replying on those questions in seriatim, as follows;

 

(a)  Answer of Question no. 1        :  Relationship subsisting between me and the complainant is at the same footing as of with the other Co-sharer and the joint owner of the property, who obliged to take their Owner’s allocation, save and except you, who choose to lodge the present consumer complaint against me, with oblique motive and to harass severally to me.

 

(b)  Answer of Question no. 2        :         The paragraph numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of my affidavit in chief are specific statements, which categorically stated that the present consumer complaint is vague and based on after thought concocted story made out by the complainant to in-clinch issues in his favour.

 

(c)  Answer of Question no. 3        :         Disagree

 

(d)  Answer of Question no. 4        :         The Owners (1) Subal Chandra Saha, (2) Sridam Saha, & (3) Sri Sudam Saha, to fulfill their desire approached this Opposite Parties and entered into a Development Agreement dated 21^st day of June’ 2017, which registered in Book No. I, Volume number 1629-2017, Pages from 55274 to 55318, being Number 162902322 for the Year 2017, in the office of the Additonal District Sub –Registrar, Garia, West Bengal.

 

(i)   The said Development Agreement dated 21^st day of June, 2017, contained the following terms to be acted upon all the parties therein;

 

(a)  Page number 8, paragraph number g – New Building shall mean the multi storied (G+3) building to be constructed at Holding No. 486, Peyarabagan, Kolkata – 700084, within the limits of the RajpurSonarpur Municipality under its Ward No. 31, by the Developer in accordance with the building plan or plans to be prepared by the Architect under the supervision and cost of the Developer, subject to the approval of the owners and sanctioned by the Municipal authority.

 

(b)  Page number 9, Paragraph number h – Owner’s allocation ALL THAT the owners will be jointly entitled to get from the Developer i.e.

 

(1)  Sri Subal Chandra Saha :

 

(i)           1 (one) flat 630 sq. ft. per flat, built up area, on 3^rd floor, front side, South-East Side, flat no. 3A,

(ii)          110 sq. ft. Car Parking space at Ground Floor,

(iii)        Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs fifty thousand) only, Non-adjustable which will paid in following manner;

(a)  On the date of Agreement paid Rs. 1,00,000/-

(b)  Balance account paid of vacant possession Rs. 1,50,000/-

 

(2)  Sri Sridam Saha :

(i)           2 (two) flats 630 sq. ft. built up area, on 2^nd floor, fron side, Flat no. 2A, South-East and Flat no. 2B, North-East Side,

(ii)          220 sq. ft. Car Parking space on Ground Floor and 200 Sq. ft. Store Room back side of the building,

(iii)        Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs) only Non-Adjustable which will paid in the following manner;

(a)  On the date of agreement paid Rs. 2,00,000/-

(b)  Balance amount to be paid of vacant possession Rs. 3,00,000/-

(iv)         Shifting @ Rs. 4,000/- per month after taken of vacant possession.

 

(3)  Mr. Sudam Saha :

(i)           1 (one) flat 630 sq. ft. built up area on 3^rd floor, front side, north-east side, flat no. 3B,

(ii)          110 sq. ft. Car Parking Space at Ground Floor,

(iii)        Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs fifty thousand) only Non-Adjustable which will paid in the following manner;

(a)  Date of Agreement Paid Rs. 1,00,000/-

(b)  Balance amount paid of vacant possession Rs. 1,50,000/- 

(iv)         Shifting @ Rs. 4,000/- per month after taken of vacant possession.

 

Upon the said premises, together with undivided proportionate share and interest of land and right of use and enjoyment of the common areas and/ or facilities.

 

(c)  Page number 11, paragraph number m – Force Majure shall means floods, earth quake, riot, war, storm, tempest, civil commotion, strike, lock-out, and/ or any other acts or commission beyond the control of parties hereto affected thereby and also non-available of essentoial like cement, steel etc. But insufficient fund shall not be considered as force majure in any way.

 

(d)  Page number 13, paragraph number 3 – The Owners will execute a General Power of Attorney in favour of the Developer in connection with all the matters of the consideration and to executed all such agreement/ conveyance for and on behalf of the Owners concerning the Developer’s share in the said proposed building with proportionate share of land in the said Premises described in the Schedule “A” hereunder written as required by the Developer, at the cost of the Developer.

 

The Developer shall pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to the owners at the times of signing of this agreement and also shall pay Rs. 6,00,000/- to the owners at the time vacating of the entire possession of schedule premises.

 

(e)  Page number 13, paragraph number 4 –The Developer has agreed and shall deliver possession of the Owner’s allocation of the proposed multi-storied building to the owners within 18 months from the sanction of plan from the RajpurSonarpur Municipality. But for any unavoidable circumstances the aforementioned period should be extended for further 6 months.

 

(f)   Page number 17, paragraph number 16 – The Builder shall construct the said Multi-Storied Building in accordance with Sanctioned Plan and terms of the agreement. The Owner if desire in respect of their flats any change, addition and renovation may get it done on payment of different costs of price of materials required for this purpose, provided such change is not legally barred by the competent authority, which may demand by the Builder. The cost materials shall be given in cash to the Builder by the Owner either in advance or after completion of such work as settled by the parties.

 

(g)  Page number 18, paragraph number 21 – The layout design/ construction/ materials of the building may be altered if required for cause of betterment and/ or statutory obligation with the prior permission of the owners in writing.

 

(h) Page number 19, paragraph number 24 –The disputes between the owners of the land and the Builder if arises for any matter shall be resolved amicably by particle negotiation and if necessary help of a common well-wisher may be availed of before going to the Court of Law.

 

(i)   Page number 19, paragraph number 25 – in case of violation of terms and conditions of this agreement either of the parties shall have the right to rescind this agreement and claim/ compensation and remedy against other.

 

(j)   Page number 21, paragraph number 29 – The Owners shall accept in full satisfaction of their claims against their land mentioned in Schedule “A” hereunder written in regard to the allotment as per clause no. h, as more particularly mentioned in Schedule “B” hereunder written.

 

(k)  Page number 22, paragraph number 33 – The Owners and the Developer do hereby agreed that in case of any unforeseen happening such as non-availability of basic raw materials for the constructional work, natural disturbance, riots, natural calamities like flood earthquakes etc. which are not under the control of the developer herein, the period of time within which the construction work is to be completed may be extended by a further period of time but to be decided by mutual discussion of both the parties.

 

(l)   Page number 23, paragraph number 37 – As soon as the said proposed building shall be completed, the Developer shall issue written notice to the Owners to take possession of their allocation mentioned in the Schedule “B” hereunder written. Then after 30 days from the date of receipt of such notice at all times thereafter the Owners shall be exclusively responsible for payment of all Municipality taxes and other outgoings in respect of their allocation.

 

(m)  Page number 25, paragraph number 40 – The Developer hereby declare that after sanction plan from the RajpurSonarpur Municipality, the Owners herein have right to partition the said property/ flats between themselves and the developer herein also agreed to help them for the said purpose, but the expenses of the said partition deed will be borne by the owners. It is morefully mention herein the owners after execution and partition of the said property should not submit for mutation of the same in the office of RajpurSonarpur Municipality before completion of the said building by the Developer/ Promoter. If the Owner will do so then owners will liable to compensate the same.

 

(ii)          The Owners executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of this Opposite Party, which registered on 21-06-2017, in the office of the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Garia, South 24 Parganas, recorded in Book no. I, Volume no. 1629-2017, pages from 54793 to 54813, Being no. 162902325 for the year 2017.

 

(iii)        The Complainant delivered the vacant possession only on 04/01/2018, jointly with his other two brothers, thereafter this opposite party take endavour and obtained the Building Sanctioned Plan on 15/02/2019, from the concerned Civic Body Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality.

 

(iv)         It is pertinent to states that the Complainant obliged to give his contribution towards installation of Electric Connectivity through “Transformer” at the said premises. The said Contribution comes as Rs. 27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand) only, more or less, and the GST payable on the value of the Flat and Car Parking being the Owners allocation allotted to the Complainant.

 

(v)          The present consumer application is an endavour to take benefit of his own wrong, as the distorted fact has been placed by the complainant in accusing the opposite party.

 

(vi)         The Complainant Sri Sudam Saha, given a Letter dated 23/03/2022, to this Opposite Party, through his Learned Advocate Amar Mondal, claiming about the money from this opposite party. This opposite party sufficiently replied the said letter dated 23/03/2022, through his Learned advocate’s letter dated 18^th day of April’ 2022. This opposite party obliged to performed in terms of the Development Agreement.

 

(vii)       It is pertinent to states that the said Development Agreement dated 21^st day of June, 2017, contained in Page number 25, paragraph number 40 – The Developer hereby declare that after sanction plan from the Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, the Owners herein have right to partition the said property/ flats between themselves and the developer herein also agreed to help them for the said purpose, but the expenses of the said partition deed will be borne by the owners. It is morefully mention herein the owners after execution and partition of the said property should not submit for mutation of the same in the office of Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality before completion of the said building by the Developer/ Promoter. If the Owner will do so then owners will liable to compensate the same, which clearly speaks that the Owners will partitioned their allocation among them, and subsequently take their allocation from this opposite party. This Opposite Party is not able to give the owners allocation individually either any one of the owner among three owners. Thus due to such reason alone, this opposite party is not able to deliver the owners allocation to Sri SudamSaha, even after completion of the building premises in all respect. The owners are not jointly come to this opposite party to take their allocation from this Opposite Party. The Owners are not taking any arrangement for their partition of the allocation in terms of the Development Agreement dated 21^st day of June, 2017.

 

(viii)     This Opposite Party is all along ready and willing to deliver the owners allocation subject to their joint approach until partitioned among them.

 

(e)  Answer of Question no. 6        :         Agree.

 

(f)   Answer of Question no. 7        :         Agree.

 

(g)  Answer of Question no. 8        :         The same are the contents & purports of the Development Agreement.

 

(h) Answer of question no. 9         :         Referred to the answer of question no. 5.

 

(i)   Answer of Question no. 10      :         I have elaborately stated in my Evidence on Affidavit.

 

(j)   Answer of Question no. 11      :         I have elaborately stated in my Evidence on Affidavit.

 

(k)  Answer of Question no. 12      :         I have elaborately stated in my Evidence on Affidavit.

 

(l)   Answer of Question no. 13      :         I have elaborately stated in my Evidence on Affidavit.

 

3.   This opposite party obliged to perform in terms of the Development Agreement. It is pertinent to states that the said Development Agreement dated 21^st day of June, 2017, contained in Page number 25, paragraph number 40 – The Developer hereby declare that after sanction plan from the Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, the Owners herein have right to partition the said property/ flats between themselves and the developer herein also agreed to help them for the said purpose, but the expenses of the said partition deed will be borne by the owners. It is morefully mention herein the owners after execution and partition of the said property should not submit for mutation of the same in the office of Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality before completion of the said building by the Developer/ Promoter. If the Owner will do so then owners will liable to compensate the same, which clearly speaks that the Owners will partitioned their allocation among them, and subsequently take their allocation from this opposite party. This Opposite Party is not able to give the owners allocation individually either any one of the owner among three owners. Thus due to such reason alone, this opposite party is not able to deliver the owners allocation to Sri Sudam Saha, even after completion of the building premises in all respect. The owners are not jointly come to this opposite party to take their allocation from this Opposite Party. The Owners are not taking any arrangement for their partition of the allocation in terms of the Development Agreement dated 21^st day of June, 2017.This Opposite Party is all along ready and willing to deliver the owners allocation subject to their joint approach until partitioned among them. The application under objection is not maintainable since the same has been made by the complainant individually, and the other Two Owners did not approach this Hon’ble Commission. The other Two Owners do not have any grievances against this Opposite Party, therefore the grievances as ventilated by the complainant is not true and liable to be dismissed inlimnie.

 

4.   This Opposite Party states that the Complainant is entitled to take rent for his alternative accommodation on and after delivery of the vacant possession to this Opposite Party the said date is 04/01/2018. The consumer complainant refused to take the rent for few months and did not collect the cheque from this opposite party. The Complainant delivered the vacant possession only on 04/01/2018, jointly with his other two brothers, thereafter this opposite party take endavour and obtained the Building Sanctioned Plan on 15/02/2019, from the concerned Civic Body RajpurSonarpur Municipality. It is pertinent to states that the Complainant obliged to give his contribution towards installation of Electric Connectivity through “Transformer” at the said premises. The said Contribution comes as Rs. 27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand) only, more or less, and the GST payable on the value of the Flat and Car Parking being the Owners allocation allotted to the Complainant. The present consumer application is an endavour to take benefit of his own wrong, as the distorted fact has been placed by the complainant in accusing the opposite party.

 

5.   The present petition of complaint is not bonafide against this opposite party, and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in terms of her prayer made therein from this opposite party in terms of the provision of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019.

 

6.   That in the facts and in the laws, it is totally evident from the application itself that the complainant is trying to miss utilizing the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission.

 

7.   That in the above circumstances, there is no cause of action for the present proceedings by the Petitioners, against the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party, accordingly pray that the Consumer Complaint be dismissed with costs.

 

8.   That in the above circumstances, there is no deficiency in service, and or unfair trade practices, on the part of the Opposite Party, rather the Opposite Party is victim of the concocted story and wrongful demand of the complainant.

 

9.   That the entire facts are Commercial in nature, therefore the present consumer complaint should be dismissed inlimnie.

 

10.        That the instant matter comes within the purview of Commercial dispute, which is within the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, therefore the present Consumer Complaint should be dismissed at once.

 

11.        That in view of the facts that the Opposite Party is victim of the purported alleged allegations and wrongful demand, the Opposite Party thereby seeking compensation as of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh ) only, for harassment and mental anxiety, arising from the institution of the present proceeding by the complainants, against this opposite party, before the Hon’ble Commission.

 

12.        That the Petitioner, neither has any cause of action nor the basis for filling the present consumer complaint and the Petitioners’ consumer complaint is entirely baseless and misconceived and deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone.

 

13.        That the Consumer Complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed with the mala fide intention, and as such deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

 

14.        That the Petitioners, are not entitled to any relief as prayed in the Consumer Complaint, and the same is liable to be dismissed inlimnie.

 

15.        That in the aforesaid circumstances, the Opposite Party is seeking the dismissal of the Complaint filed by the Petitioners, with exemplary cost.

 

16.        That the Opposite Party crave leave to produce any necessary documents and or papers, in the proceeding at the time of hearing and or placing the Evidence on Affidavit, before the Hon’ble Commission, in the interest of Administration of Justice.

 

17.        That the present consumer complaint should be dismissed at once in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, as the same is found frivolous and vexatious one, against this opposite party.

 

It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, would graciously be pleased to allow this Reply of the Opposite Party, and to dismiss and or reject at once the petition of consumer complaint filed by the Petitioner, against this opposite party herein, with costs, in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, and rules made therein, in the interest of administration of justice, and or to pass such other necessary order or orders or further order or orders as the Hon’ble Commission, 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, Sujit Saha being the Opposite Party number 2, in the present consumer proceeding, I am acquainted and conversant with the material facts stated in my reply. I am Proprietor of the Opposite Party number 1, M/s. SKS Developer. I verify, & sign the Reply on Affidavit on 19^th day of March’ 2025, at the Alipore Judges’ Court Premises.

 

 

 

 

DEPONENT

Identified by me,

 

Advocate

Prepared in my Chamber,

 

Advocate

Date : 19^th day of March’ 2025

Place :Alipore Judges’ Court

N O T A R Y