CIVIL PRoCEDURE CoDE ROIAIBALOOI5
ANOOJ KUMAR G.
INTERNAL ASSTGNMENT
SECTTON-% (BALLB)
PLAINT V-SEM)
IN THE cOURT OF CIVIL JUDGE CJUNIOR DIVIS1ON), AT KANPUR .
Surt No .020
Kumar S/o Rohit, aged about 45 yeors,Ocupalion : hatel keepe r
R/O, AS, Skyhigh Resiclenc y, GG Road,Kanpur
Plainif
Nersvs
Raj S/o Rakesh, agecl about 37 years, Orcupatfon: landllordd,
R/o, K3, Sealous Resid ency, MK Roacl, Kanpur
* Detenclant
PLAINT FTLED ONDER ORDER VII) 7, RULE ITO8 C1-VMI1)
OF CPC FOR THG RECOVERY OF RS. Bawool-CFIVE LAKH)
PLATNTIEF'S GCoDE
AS COMPENSATION FOR WRONGIFUL SETZURE OF
humbly Submik as under:
he above mentioned Plaintijf
Decripion of the PlaintiH
Kumar Son ot Rohit , aged about 45 gears, a hotel keeper,
nesiding at A5 &yhigh Residenca. Gh Roacd, Kanpur.
R.Descriphion othe D«tendant:
Ra. Son of Rakesh , aged about Yars a lancl lord
34 ,
nesiding al k3, Sealo Resicency,MK Road, Kanpur.
3. The Plaintji was running a es tau rant ot kanpur , Han more than
dour years past, under he name and shyle of Poroclise
Hotel arcd Restaurant"
4. That the bwlding in uwhich the said business was bein carnied
on by the Plaintij belonged to the Defend ant under whom he
mensem.
Plainifas a tenant at Rs-5000 per
5. That al the goods like crockerg. uterils, almariah, rejnigeraior.
Jurni ture, etc. used jor running the soicl business bebnged to the
Plaintijj arnd not to the defendant.
10141 BALOO|S
ANOOS KUMAR
6. Thatin orcler to injure the Ploinijf.and to exlort more rent from the
Plaiotij, the Dafend anf stattecd misbeha ving uih the plointij
4. That inspite o the protests ot the PRintilh, the Dejendant
Horcelutly dispossesed the Plointi Jrom the said premises arnd
Sei xed Plalntl}'s above me nkioned
goocis
8 That on account of fhe uronghul selzure o Plaintiji gocds in the
circunstan ces mentioned above, the Plaintif has suHered a
peuuniary lass a Rs. 500000 /- which the Detendant is liable
to
pauy to the Pointif but the e}endant has rejused to pay
the same.
9. Thad the cause action arose on 2 11-2020(Twenty Ninth
Day o November 2020) , when the goods of the Plainti
were selzecd
by. the Defendant at the note of Hs execution
at
Kanpur, hence the court has jurisciction.
IO.That the Volue of the suit for the purpose of court-jee
Ond Jurisdicion is Rs. 5cooo0- hence the covYt has
gurisdicti on.
1. AalntijH praus for the dollowing re liets
a) That a clecree jor the paument ot Rs. BOOooo/- he passed ,
in favour o the
plaintij and agai ngt deftndant with
costs of the suit.
b)Any ofher elie which the cort deems
fF in
he_interest
ojustice.
Verijiaation Plain
I Mr. Kumar, Slo Mr. Rohit the
, a bove mentioned
plaln Hi}, clo hereby veri that the con ttnts of Ito 9 are
4rue and correct the lbest of my knauleclge and be liet and the
contents ot the nemaining paras are on the asis
of
informahion and leaal acleice Fuom mg coun.sel ohich I
believe to be true and verity on this Tuwehty Nin th Day
oNovember 202 D ar Kanpur.
Place Kanpor
1Date 3 - 12 RORD Sd- Counsel Scl Plainti
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RO19I BAL COI5
INTERNAL ASSIMNMENT ANCOJ KUMAR G
WRITTGN STATEMENT.
SECTION-3 (A LLB
V-SEM
IN THE COURT OF CLVIL JUDGE
JUNIOR) ,
AT kANPUR.
ult No. .. o2020D
Kumar 36 Rohit,aged about 45years, Occupation hotel keeper
R/o,A5,3kuhigh. Restidencg,GG Roacl, Kanpor
Plaintif
Nersus
Roi So Rakesh, agec about 37 years, Occupation: land lord,
R/O, k3, Seaous Residencu, MK Rood, konpur.
... Defndant.
JRITTEN SUTEMENT FILED UNDER. CRDER (VI11) 8, RULE 1 TO6
C-VI) OF CPC FOR THE RECOvERY OF Rs. 50000o/-(FIVE
LAKH) AS CoMPENISATION FOR RONGFUL SEIZURE OF
PLATNTIFF's GooDS.
The above menhioned Dejendant humbly submit s as uncler
1. That the Content s a Para4Bae admitecd;
2. Trat the Con tnis oPara 3 &h are admitted
3. That the contents o Para 5 ae denied. The
goods
mentione d in para 5, used for unmingthe said business
baonged and entiuly to the dlefendant and not the
Plainhj and not any Fant of the gocds in question.
Plaintij mag ba pat to prool,
4 That, fa contunts of para 6 012 sthcngla denied, as hese
are faisedicitious and nivolouS. The Plainif may be
put o pacot
5. Thar the para 7 is accepted. to thie fact that tfe
plaintjf oas dispossessed by tie Defendant om the
sai d premises, but nest qf he contcnts o para7 are
denied as thay are the distortion o acts.
gaAALO AN3 KLM
6. That fhe contents apara 8 are denied voumentH
These are vst a pack lies dnd plaintij i6 noi entitlkd
JOn Carnu compensation as plaintiff has not sufou d any
ecuniary loss. Plai ni f must be put to phcaf
.Poara 8 i danied. The jnissdichion of tho cout is
hotueve admitled.
3 Para Io u legal and hene has no nando eply,
houwevo the wisdic ion o tRo count is odmiHecl
.The Plaintit is vot enti tld ox anu eliet Th
t h fore oyed fat tke Sui may ho dismissed.
oit cost.
Additional Pleas
The akove tmenticned Delendant do submits the odli'hicra
Pleas as undu
1)That tfe deftndont was rimsef Caunying ontha business o
Hotel and Restawont in tho 30icd pamises,
2 That because ot cenkain healh easns 4hu defendant
honded over tke busi ness uoith bu lding6 0s well as the
goocds in qusstoru on xon O RS. 500 o pa mensum
to 1fo plainif
)That A ducd o such ent ucas executecl betuween Plaini
and Dajendant on. 1s day o May R02 D
4) That the Plainijf has stop pbying the rent rom
Agust RO7, Jon hfch hotice was served to
Hhe plaintif:
5)That on 2qh Dau oNovemban Ro20, the detndant
asked ihe Plainti. wifhauf Sing any Jona, to
evict tte said building
Place: Kanpvn
pate 1512 R020 Sd-
Coursel Deendant
20la|BALOOS
Venlicatio ANCOT kUMAR G.
I M Raj s/o MrRakesh , the olove mentioned dejendant, do
haeby voiitu ihat that thu contnts of fara I to 6 and
AdditHonal Pleas are taue anc coect fo tha best omy
knouoleclge onda lie and the contents of the pana 7t
are on 1he basis oinonma fion and lega advice fiom my
Counsel shic h I believe do be. Eue, and wifg his on
hs 15 doy of Decemher, 202D at Kanpun.
&d Deendant
