IN THE COURT OF SH.
DEEPAK DABBAS, ADJ, DISTRICT
WEST, TIS-HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. NO. _______________ OF 2017
SMT. RAMESHWERI …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
THROUGH ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(WEST ZONE) OFFICE AT: EC-BLOCK,
VISHAL ENCLAVE, TAGORE GARDEN
EXTENSION, NEW DELHI …DEFENDANTS
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANT IN THE “SUIT FOR COMPENSATION
UNDER LAW OF TORTS”
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOEWTH:
1. That the defendant organisation is a civic body having a
responsibility of monitoring, upgrading and developing civic
amenities and services to residential and commercial areas,
located at S.P. Mukharjee Civic Centre, Minto Road, JLN Marg
Delhi.
2. It is submitted that the defendant has gone through the
averments made in the plaint and affidavit filed in support of
the plaint. The averments, not specifically admitted, are
denied. The Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The
averments made are not correct and false and the suit is not
maintainable under the eye of law hence be dismissed.
BRIEF OF RELEVANT FACTS :
That the petitioner had filed the instant read petition levelling
false allegations which are based on the fictitious and forged
ground so as to save out their faces for the wrong, committed
on their part by violating the law of the land i.e. encroaching
upon the municipal land and raising illegal interest acture in
the form of Pucca infrastructure on the municipal and
knowing well within their intention that they have no legal
right or legal authority to raise the structure on the said land
and that the incident has occurred as a result of their own
illegal activities attributable on their part, by not taking
requisite care and due diligence at the time of removal of their
own unauthorised and illegal construction on the municipal
land by themselves and that the respondents MCD is not a
necessary party as there is no voluntary and involuntary
involvement of any official of the respondent MCD with the
alleged incident.
As no work of digging of the drain adjoining to the spot of
incident was ever conducted by the respondent as per
available record of the respondent as such, the question of
involvement of any official of MCD does not arise at all and the
suit under reply is liable to be dismissed on this very ground,
being a false, forged and based on fictitious statements of the
petitioner is made on oath before this honourable court.
Further, it reveals after going through the detailed study of the
contents of the suit under reply and it has been found that
there is no involvement of any official of MCD concerned in the
alleged incident at any time in any manner whatsoever and
there is a case of personal, careless activities on the part of
petitioners themselves.
That over the years, the occupants had done unauthorised
encroachments and constructions in their Houses as a matter
of fact originally plot for measuring 22.5 m² for awarded for
the use of settlement Colony in multiple and constructions up
to single story were allowed. However, with the passage of the
time, second and third floors were added illegally and the
municipal land and public road, were encroached upon, by
everybody in front of their houses.
Thereafter an encroachment removal program started. The
house owners themselves Puncher at the front portion of their
houses. The supporting walls of the houses were removed
without any technical knowledge and after open to
environment, soaking in rain water, the building at F – 225, JJ
Colony, Madhav Pura, deteriorated and as a result collapsed.
PARAWISE REPLY TO THE SUIT :
1. That the contents of Para 1 are wrong and denied. It is
submitted in this regard that the petitioner had filed the
instant suit levelling false allegations which are based on the
fictitious and forged ground so as to save out their faces for
the wrong committed on their part by violating the law of the
land i.e. encroaching the municipal land and raising illegal
infrastructure in the form of Pucca infrastructure on the
municipal land and knowing well within their intention that
they have no legal right or legal authority to raise the
structure on the said land and that the incident has occurred
as a result of their own illegal activities attributable on their
part, by not taking requisite care and due diligence at the time
of removal of their own unauthorised and illegal construction
on the municipal land by themselves and that the respondents
MCD is not a necessary party as there is no voluntary and
involuntary involvement of any official of the respondent MCD,
with the alleged incident.
2. That the Contents of Para-2 are matter of record hence need
no reply from the answering defendant.
3. That the Contents of Para-3 up-till they are matter of record
need no reply from the answering defendant. In this regard, it
is submitted that there is no voluntary and in voluntary
involvement of any official of the respondent MCD with the
alleged incident.
4. That the Contents of Para-4 are wrong, hence denied. It is
submitted that because no work of digging of the drain
adjoining to the spot of incident was ever conducted by the
respondents as per available record of the respondents as
such, hence the question of respondent being negligent does
not arise. It is also to be submitted in this regard that over
the years unauthorised encroachments and constructions are
been done and as a matter of fact originally plot measuring
22.5 m² was awarded for the use of settlement colonies and
constructions up to single story were allowed. However, with
the passage of the time the second and third floors were added
illegally and the municipal land and public road were also
encroached upon by the residents in front of their houses.
But, when encroachment removal program started, the house
owners themselves Puncher at the front portion of their
houses, and supporting walls of the houses were removed
without any technical knowledge and thereafter, after soaking
in rain water, the building at F – 225, JJ Colony, Madhav
Pura, collapsed. Hence, under such a situation the question of
involvement of any official of MCD does not arise at all and the
suit under reply is liable to be dismissed on this very ground,
as being a false, forged suit.
5. That the content of Para-5 are wrong hence denied. The
content of para does not require the answering defendant to
reply as the para is dealing with the calculation of the amount
to be charged as compensation under the stated situation.
While the answering defendant is of the view that since there
arise no liability of the answering defendant hence the
question of calculation of the compensation needs no answer
from the defendant. It is further submitted in this regard that
the calculations done with regard to the compensation amount
are wrongly done by the plaintiff as the situation under
consideration arose due to their own acts of encroachment of
the municipal lands illegally and not because of any other
reasons and it is due to this reason they are not liable for any
amount instead the facts narrated clearly describes that they
are guilty of encroaching the government land/property.
6. That the content of Para-6 are wrong hence denied. It is
submitted that the present case is not the case of negligence
done by the defendant rather present case is a case of
encroachment over the public land and then negligently
removal of the encroachment by the plaintiff and under such a
situation the question of vicarious liability does not stand and
the answering defendant cannot be held liable for these stated
reasons.
7. That the content of Para-7 are wrong hence denied. It is
submitted that there is a specific provision and process
through which the municipal organisation works and
according to that Act, there is a specific provision while
dealing with any complaint against the defendant. It is
submitted accordingly that the same has not been followed
hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed, as there is no such
indication of following the procedure as per the section 478 of
the DMC Act.
8. That the content of Para-8 are wrong hence denied. It is
submitted that under the above stated circumstances there
exists no cause of action against the defendant. It is further
stated that while deciding the issue of limitation the court has
to see everything in the light of the facts provided.
{{{{{{
9. That the content of para-9 are wrong hence denied. It is
submitted that the suit is wrongly valued by the plaintiffs and
hence is liable to be dismissed.
10. That the content of para-10 are wrong hence denied. It is
submitted that the plaintiff has wrongly stated that the office
of defendant is suited within the jurisdiction of this
honourable court.
11. That the content of para-10 are wrong hence denied.
12. The other allegations of the plaint which are not specifically
admitted herein are denied. The plaintiff is put to strict proof
of the same.
Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss
the suit with cost as there exists no ground against the
answering defendant.
Through
Counsel (Defendant)
Verification :
I,
aged
about (age) years, do hereby declare that the facts stated in
paras 1 to 11 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief and I believe the same to be true and
correct. Hence, verified on this the day of September, 2018
at Delhi.
PLACE: Delhi
DATED: (Defendant)
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABBAS, ADJ, DISTRICT
WEST, TIS-HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. NO. _______________ OF 2017
SMT. RAMESHWERI …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
THROUGH ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(WEST ZONE) OFFICE AT: EC-BLOCK,
VISHAL ENCLAVE, TAGORE GARDEN
EXTENSION, NEW DELHI …DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, am and
competent to swear this affidavit :-
1. That the organisation, being the respondent in the above
noted appeal I am well conversant with the facts of the
case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Written Statement has been
drafted at my instance, and the contents thereof have
been read over and explained to me in vernacular, which
are true and correct as to my knowledge and the same are
to be read and treated as part of this affidavit as the same
are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this day of 2018 that the
contents of the appeal are true and correct as to my knowledge. No
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABBAS, ADJ, DISTRICT
WEST, TIS-HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. NO. _______________ OF 2017
SMT. RAMESHWERI …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
THROUGH ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(WEST ZONE) OFFICE AT: EC-BLOCK,
VISHAL ENCLAVE, TAGORE GARDEN
EXTENSION, NEW DELHI …DEFENDANTS
REPLY TO APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6
RULE 17 C.P.C.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOEWTH:
1. That the contents of initial paragraph are matter of fact are
matter of record hence needs no reply from the answering
defendant.
2. That the present application under order 6 rule 17 of CPC
1908 filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the suit
has to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed
to establish that despite due diligence the amendment could
not be incorporated at the early stage of the suit. Hence the
present application does not stand in the eye of law and is
liable to be dismissed.
3. That that the present application is devoid of law hence is
liable to be dismissed. The amendment application should not
be allowed where by virtue of the amendment the nature of
suit is changed or some prejudice is caused to the defendant,
as stated in Mount Mary Enterprises v. Jivratna Medi
Treat (P) Ltd, (2015) 4 SCC 182. By allowing the present
application, the court will be deciding against the view taken
in the above mentioned case by the apex court.
4. That the contents mentioned in the application are devoid of
any law and merit and hence are opposed strongly.
5. That if the present application is allowed then the nature of
the suit will be changed completely which in turn is beyond
the scope of application under order 6 rule 17 code of civil
procedure 1908. It is a well settled point that any application
filed under Order 6 Rule 17, of code of civil procedure will not
be allowed to change the very nature of the suit. Hence under
the light of above mentioned law the application does not hold
the power or are not allowed to change the very nature of the
suit hence under the light of above stated averment the
present application is liable to be dismissed.
6. That if the present application be allowed then a gross
prejudice to the defendant may occur, as deleting the
contractor from the area of party will only exhaust the cause
of action of the plaintiff against the answering defendant as
their subsistence no cause of action against the answering
defendant and plaintiff is only dragging the defendant to the
present suit just to fleece out some money from the answering
defendant of the wrongs committed as the result of the act of
his own
7. That the present application is liable to be dismissed as the
plaintiff has failed to establish beyond doubts that despite all
due diligence the amendment could not to be incorporated at
the early stages of the suit as the contents of the Writ petition
no. 5598 of 2007 which are being filed by the plaintiff were
known to the plaintiff as being instituted by himself only. But
even the after knowing and reading the abovementioned
petition also the plaintiff choose not to incorporate the
contents of the same deliberately, this act of the plaintiff
shows that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean
hands which in turn is gross abuse of law.
8. That the prayers asked for in the present application are
wrong, incorrect and a misuse of law by the plaintiff. The
application filed by the plaintiff is devoid of facts and merit
and hence it is stated vehemently that the applicant is not
entitled to any relief.
It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the application under
consideration may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of
justice, equity, and fair play, as the present application is
nothing else but only misuse of law.
Place: Delhi Through (Defendant)
Dated: Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABBAS, ADJ, DISTRICT
WEST, TIS-HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. NO. _______________ OF 2017
SMT. RAMESHWERI …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
THROUGH ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(WEST ZONE) OFFICE AT: EC-BLOCK,
VISHAL ENCLAVE, TAGORE GARDEN
EXTENSION, NEW DELHI …DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, am and
competent to swear this affidavit :-
1. That the organisation, being the respondent in the above
noted appeal I am well conversant with the facts of the
case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying application has been drafted at
my instance, and the contents thereof have been read over
and explained to me in vernacular, which are true and
correct as to my knowledge and the same are to be read
and treated as part of this affidavit as the same are not
being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this day of 2018 that the
contents of the appeal are true and correct as to my knowledge. No
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
DEPONENT
