DRAFTING, PLEADING AND

CONVEYANCING

NAME: KHUSHI PERIWAL DIV-A ROLL NO.: A020

SAP ID: 81012200144

INDEX
Sr No. Particulars Submission Date Page No.

1 PPT 1-6

2 PLAINT 18th January 7-12

3 WRITTEN STATEMENT 18th January 13- 18

4 MUTUAL CONSENT 2nd February 19-27

DIVORCE
5 IA 12th February 28-33

6 LEGAL NOTICE 16th February 34-40

7 LEGAL OPINION 7th March 41-51

8 COMPLAINT 12th March 52-54

9 BAIL 12th March 55-57

10 WRIT 17th March 58-60

11 WILL 21st March 61-63

ICA
DRAFTING, PLEADING AND
CONVEYANCING

KHUSHI PERIWAL
A020
81012200144
JURISDICTION
The City Civil Court, Dindoshi Mumbai
Both parties reside in Mumbai and the cheques were presented in
Mumbai

FACTS
In January 2022, the Defendant, Amit Rohit Kohli, requested a financial
accommodation of Rs. 30,00,000 from the Plaintiff, Rajesh Manoj Sharma, promising
repayment through three post-dated cheques. The Plaintiff paid the amount, but
when the cheques were presented in January 2023, they were dishonoured due to
insufficient funds. Despite repeated requests and a statutory notice sent in May
2023, the Defendant failed to repay the amount, leading the Plaintiff to file this suit
for recovery.

ISSUE
Defendant has breached the agreeed terms of payment and has failed to
honour the agreement.

PLAINT 01
CONSENT TERMS
Residence & Separation
Custody & Visitation Rights
Permanent Alimony & Financial
Settlement
Division of Assets & Property
Child’s Financial Security
Return of Gifts

MUTUAL CONSENT
DIVORCE PETITION
02
NOTICE OF
DIVORCE

03
Legal heirs are liable to clear outstanding dues before claiming
ownership of the flat.
The Society must send a 15-day legal notice demanding payment.
If unpaid, recovery proceedings can be initiated under Section 101
of the MCS Act.
A lien can be placed on the property, restricting its transfer until
dues are paid.
Legal action, including attachment and auction, may be taken if
heirs fail to settle dues.

A nominee is a trustee, not an absolute owner, and ownership is

subject to succession laws.
Due to conflicting nominations, heirs must obtain a succession
certificate or probate from the court.
The Society should request an indemnity bond and an NOC from all
legal heirs before transfer.
If no consensus is reached, the Society must wait for a court order.
Proper legal verification and due diligence are necessary before
executing the transfer.

LEGAL OPINION 04
WILL

05
 IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT OF JUDICATURE,

DINDOSHI, MUMBAI

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 124 OF 2024

Name Rajesh Sharma )

S/o. Ramesh Sharma )

An Adult, Senior Citizen, Age about 38 Years, )

Occ. Business, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, )

Residing At Vile Parle West )

Aadhar No. 1478 9874 2231 )

Mob. No.: +91 – 98708 24312 )

Email Id.: rajesh132@gmail.com ) …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

Name Amit Shah )

S/o Ankit Shah )

An Adult, Senior Citizen, Age about 40 Years, )

Occ. Business, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, )

Residing At Vile Parle West )

Aadhar No. 8827 8901 2413 )

Mob. No.: +91 – 98241 42424 )

Email Id.: amitshah178@gmail.com ) …DEFENDANT

TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER
PUISNE JUDGES OF THIS HON’BLE COURT

HUMBLE SUIT FOR MONEY RECOVERY UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 AND UNDER ORDER XXXVII RULE 1(2)
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

The Plaintiff above named does hereby state and submits as under:

1. The Plaintiff, Rajesh, is an Indian inhabitant, a businessman engaged in

the export business under the name of “Pankaj & Co.,” earning his
livelihood through the said business. The Plaintiff and Defendants are
Adults, Indian Inhabitants, residing at the address mentioned in the cause
title.
2. The Plaintiff and Defendant have been known to each other since
childhood, having studied in the same school and lived in the same
building at Vile Parle West, Mumbai. Both families are well-acquainted,
and the Plaintiff and Defendant have maintained a close friendship.
3. The Plaintiff is a businessman carrying on an export business under the
firm name "Pankaj & Co.," while the Defendant is engaged in a textile
business.
4. In January 2022, the Defendant requested a legally enforceable debt of
₹30,00,000 for his business purposes and provided three postdated cheques of
₹10,00,000 each, drawn on YES Bank, Andheri Branch, Mumbai, as security.
The Plaintiff, relying on their friendship and trust, issued a cheque of
₹30,00,000 dated 29th January 2022, cheque no. 123456 which was duly
enchased by the Defendant.
5. Subsequently, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff not to deposit the
cheques due to financial difficulties and assured repayment in a short
time. However, the Defendant failed to honor his commitment and
avoided the Plaintiff's calls and messages.
6. On January 2, 2023, the Plaintiff deposited three cheques issued by the
Defendant for encashment. However, all three cheques were returned
dishonored by the bank, with the return memos citing the reason as
 "Funds Insufficient.
7. Upon being informed by the Plaintiff, Rajesh, about the dishonor of the
cheques, the Defendant, Amit, expressed financial difficulties and
assured the Plaintiff that fresh cheques would be issued after a reasonable
period. However, despite repeated reminders and follow-ups by the
Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to fulfill this assurance, thereby issuing a
statutory notice.
8. Despite receiving a statutory notice dated 5th May 2023, the Defendant
failed to repay the amount or respond to the notice within the prescribed
time period of 15 day, thereby the civil suit is filed before the Honorable
court.
9. The Plaintiff has a direct and substantial interest in recovering the
amount of ₹30,00,000 lent to the Defendant.
10. The cause of action arose on 2nd January 2023 upon dishonor of the
cheques issued by the Defendant as the defendant failed to repay the loan
amount on the agreed date.
11. The Plaintiff submits that no part of the claim in the suit is barred by law
of limitation.
12. The Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff has not claimed any reliefs beyond
the scope of Order 37 Rule 1 of CPC. The Plaintiff states that in the facts
and circumstances mentioned hereinabove the suit is maintainable as
summary suit under Order 37 Rule 1 of CPC.
13. This Hon’ble City Civil Court at Dindoshi has the jurisdiction to
entertain and adjudicate the present suit, as the value of the suit is below
₹10 crore, in accordance with the pecuniary limits prescribed under the law.
Furthermore, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant reside and/or carry on
business within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and the cause of action
has arisen at Vile Parle, Mumbai, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Hon’ble Court.
14. The Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff values the suit at Rs. 30,45,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Lakhs Forty-Five Thousand only) including 15% interest per annum
amounts to 45000/- (Rupees Forty-Five Thousand only) and pays the court
fees accordingly.
15. The Plaintiffs humbly submits that he craves leave of this Hon'ble Court
to amend, alter, delete, add and modify the statement/s as mentioned
 herein above and further to file a separate Compilation of Documents as
and when required.
16. The Plaintiff states that, save and except the present Suit, Plaintiff have
not filed any other Application/Petition/Plaint or any other legal
proceeding in relation to the present subject matter of the partition and
separation in the present Suit before this Hon’ble Court or any other
Court/Tribunal within India.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff respectfully

Prays: -

a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the present Suit.

b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a decree in favor of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendant for the recovery of ₹30,45,000
along with interest @ 15% p.a. from 5th January 2024 until realization.
c. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant the Plaintiff costs of
this suit.
d. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such other order
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in interest of
justice.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PLAINTIFF SHALL BE DUTY BOUND.

Dated this 5th March, 2024.
Place – Mumbai.
 VERIFICATION

I, Rajesh Sharma S/o. Ramesh Sharma, the abovenamed Plaintiff, Age 38 years, residing at
Vile Parle West, Mumbai, do hereby on solemnly declare that what is stated in the above Plaint
is verified by me and same is true and correct as per record and as per my knowledge.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai )

Dated this 5th day of January, 2024. )

(Plaintiff / Deponent)

Identified by me, BEFORE ME:

Advocate for Plaintiff

 WRITTEN STATEMENT

IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT OF JUDICATURE,

DINDOSHI, MUMBAI

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 124 OF 2024

Name Rajesh Sharma )

S/o. Ramesh Sharma )

An Adult, Senior Citizen, Age about 38 Years, )

Occ. Business, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, )

Residing At Vile Parle West )

Aadhar No. 1478 9874 2231 )

Mob. No.: +91 – 98708 24312 )

Email Id.: rajesh132@gmail.com ) …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

Name Amit Shah )

S/o Pinku Shah )

An Adult, Senior Citizen, Age about 40 Years, )

Occ. Business, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, )

Residing At Vile Parle West )

Aadhar No. 8827 8901 2413 )

Mob. No.: +91 – 98241 42424 )

Email Id.: amitshah178@gmail.com ) …DEFENDANT

TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER
PUISNE JUDGES OF THIS HON’BLE COURT

HUMBLE SUIT FOR MONEY RECOVERY UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 AND UNDER ORDER XXXVII RULE 1(2)
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

The Defendant above named does hereby state and submits as under:

1. At the outset, these Defendants states and submit that the present Suit filed by the
Plaintiff before the Hon’ble Court is not maintainable against the Defendants on the
following grounds, which are without prejudice to one another and are as follows: -
2. That the Defendant hereby states that the Plaintiff has filed a Suit before the Hon’ble
Court with the malafide intention to waste the time and money of the defendant.
3. The defendant states that the statements made in paragraph 1,2,3 of the plaint are
matters of record and, therefore, require no further response.
4. The Defendant categorically denies the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the plaint. It is
denied that the Defendant requested a legally enforceable debt of ₹30,00,000 for
business purposes. The Defendant further denies the issuance of postdated cheques as
security for a loan, or that any agreement for a loan was ever made. The Defendant asserts
that there was no debt agreement between the parties, and the cheques were issued for a
completely different purpose, unrelated to any loan arrangement. The issuance of the
Plaintiff’s cheque dated 29th January 2022 (cheque no. 123456) was unrelated to any debt
obligation and was made based on a mutual understanding between the parties, which did
not create any enforceable financial obligation.
5. The Defendant denies the claims made in Paragraph 5. The Defendant did not request
the Plaintiff not to deposit the cheques due to financial difficulties, nor did the
Defendant assure repayment within a short time. The Defendant acknowledges
discussing financial matters with the Plaintiff but denies making any commitments
regarding repayment or acknowledging any debt. The Defendant also denies
avoiding the Plaintiff’s calls and messages, and any such claim is without merit. The
Defendant states that any delay in communication was due to personal reasons
unrelated to any debt obligations.
6. The Defendant vehemently denies the allegations in Paragraph 6,7,8 & 9. The
 Defendant asserts that no agreement or obligation existed that would warrant the
issuance of the three cheques referred to in the plaint. The Defendant also denies the
Plaintiff’s claims of repeated reminders and follow-ups, as no such communication
was required or made by the Plaintiff. In fact, the Defendant had already expressed
that no debt existed and no further payments were due, and any claim made by the
Plaintiff is entirely unfounded. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim is
entirely baseless, and the Plaintiff has no legal right to recover any amount from the
Defendant.

7. The Defendant submits that no summary judgment can be filed at this stage due to
the absence of a legally enforceable debt or agreement between the parties. The facts
and circumstances of the case are disputed, and several critical issues regarding the
existence of any debt, the authenticity of the cheques, and the lack of agreement on
terms remain unresolved. As such, the Defendant requests that the matter proceed to
trial, as the claims made by the Plaintiff are contentious and cannot be decided
summarily at this stage. The Defendant further submits that the Plaintiff's suit is
based on misunderstandings and incorrect assertions, and a full hearing is necessary
to determine the merit of the case.

8. The Defendant acknowledges discussing financial matters with the Plaintiff but
denies making any commitments regarding repayment or acknowledging any debt.
9. The Defendant further denies the issuance of postdated cheques as security for a
loan, or that any agreement for a loan was ever made. The Defendant asserts that
there was no debt agreement between the parties, and the cheques were issued for a
completely different purpose, unrelated to any loan arrangement. The issuance of the
Plaintiff’s cheque dated 29th January 2022 (cheque no. 123456) was unrelated to any
debt obligation and was made based on a mutual understanding between the parties,
which did not create any enforceable financial obligation.
10. The Defendant submits that the cheques in question were issued exclusively as
security for a distinct business transaction involving the payment for export items
and were in no way connected to the alleged ₹30,00,000 loan claimed by the Plaintiff.
These cheques were not issued as part of any agreement to repay a loan or as
acknowledgment of any legally enforceable debt. The Defendant states that the payment for
the export items was duly settled through the endorsement and encashment of separate
cheques provided for this purpose. The Plaintiff has already received the payments related to
the export transaction, and the Defendant has fulfilled all obligations associated with that
 business dealing.
11. The Defendant also submits that the cheques provided as security for the export
transaction were to be returned or canceled upon the successful completion of the
said transaction and settlement of payments. However, the Plaintiff, failed to return
or cancel the cheques and has now falsely relied on them to support the false claim
of a loan.
12. The Defendant further contends that the Plaintiff has deliberately conflated the two
distinct and unrelated transactions. Although the sum involved in the export
transaction and the alleged loan coincidentally matches, this does not imply any
correlation or liability on the part of the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s attempt to link the
cheques issued as security for the export transaction to the alleged loan is a
misrepresentation of facts intended to mislead this Hon'ble Court.
13. The Defendant categorically denies the existence of any loan or financial arrangement
involving ₹30,00,000. The cheques in question were issued solely to ensure security
for the smooth completion of the export transaction and were not intended as
instruments of repayment for any loan. The Plaintiff’s assertions are baseless, lack
credibility, and appear to be an attempt to unjustly benefit by mixing two separate
transactions.
14. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Plaintiff’s claims are entirely
misconceived, and the present suit is devoid of merit, as the alleged debt or loan is
neither substantiated by evidence nor supported by the actual facts of the case.
15. That the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable in law as there is no cause of
action to file the present suit.
16. That the suit filed by the Plaintiff is based on false, frivolous, vexatious and
malicious grounds.
17. That the Plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and they
have suppressed various materials facts from this Hon’ble Court and attempted to
play fraud upon this Hon’ble Court by withholding the said facts, touching to the
root of the case.
18. The suit of the Plaintiff is barred by Law of limitation.
19. That the Plaintiff has made false and incorrect statements on oath deliberately with
dishonest intention to mislead and snatch some favorable order from this Hon’ble
Court.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff respectfully

 Prays: -

a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dismiss the present suit filed by the
Plaintiff with costs,
b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Declare the Cheques Invalid.
c. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to award costs of the litigation to the
Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of
the process of law.
d. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such other order as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in interest of justice.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PLAINTIFF SHALL BE DUTY BOUND.

Dated this 23rd January, 2024.
Place – Mumbai.
 VERIFICATION

I, Amit Shah S/o. Ankit Shah, the abovenamed Plaintiff, Age 40 years, residing
at Vile Parle West, Mumbai, do hereby on solemnly declare that what is stated in
the above Written Statement is verified by me and same is true and correct as per
record and as per my knowledge.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai )

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2024. )

(Defendant)

Identified by me, BEFORE ME:

Advocate for Defendant

REGULAR SUBMISSION-2nd FEB
1

BEFORE THE COURT OF HON'BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE

FAMILY COURT AT SURAT.
M. J. PETITION NO.: /2025

PETITIONER : 1) MR. VIKAS PARAS JAIN

S/O PARAS JAIN, Age: 45,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant
Occupation: Job
Having his address at: A-1210, Ofira
Posh, Vesu, Surat-395017
Email Id: ____________
Mobile No.: ________________
2) M R S . MADHU W/O VIKAS JAIN
D/O RAMESH PAREKH, Age: 42
Adult, Indian Inhabitant
Occupation: Job
Having his address at: B-1010, Green
Valley, Vesu, Surat-395017
Email Id: ____________
Mobile No.: ________________

VS

RESPONDENT : NONE.

SUBJECT : PETITION UNDER SECTION 13B OF THE HINDU

MARRIAGE ACT FOR DIVORCE BY MUTUAL
CONSENT.
The Petitioners above named most respectfully sheweth as under:
1) The Petitioner No. 1 is an Adult, aged about 45 years, Hindu,
Indian Inhabitant residing at the address mentioned in the title of the
Petition and has his domicile in the Gujarat with Aadhar Card
No.:____________. The Petitioner No. 2 is also an Adult, aged about
years, Hindu, Indian Inhabitant residing at the address mentioned in
the title of the Petition and has Aadhar Card No. ___________. Hereto
annexed and marked as EXHIBIT – “ --- ” & “---” is copies of the
Aadhar Card No.: _________of the Petitioner No. 1 and Aadhar Card
No.: _________of the Petitioner No. 2, respectively.

2) The Petitioners were married to each other on 28/06/2007 at

Chowk, Surat as per Hindu Vedic customs and rituals in presence of
 2

family members, relatives and guests from both the sides. The
Petitioners are therefore, legally wedded wife and husband. Hereto
also annexed and marked as EXHIBIT “----” & “--” are the
photographs of the Petitioners’ at the time of their marriage. The
Petitioners do have one daughter named 'HETVI' born on 18/05/2010
aged 14 years. At Present, the Petitioner no.2 is not pregnant through
the Petitioner no. 1.
3) That, the said marriage was an arranged marriage and was
solemnized as per sweet will of both the petitioners and their families.
At the time of the said marriage, no dowry items of any kind were
taken or given by either petitioner in the said marriage.
4) That, after the said marriage the petitioners lived together under the
same roof as husband and wife. However, during the very short span of
 3

marriage, the petitioners realized that due to serious differences in their

nature, habits, thoughts, temperament and increasing incompatibility,
the relationship had deteriorated considerably. The petitioners could
not adjust with each other or fulfill their matrimonial obligations and
therefore the petitioners have been living separately since February,
2020. The differences and disputes inter se has reached to such an
extent that both the petitioners cannot stay with each other and
therefore the petitioners have decided to split their ways and put a
permanent end to their marriage. The petitioners have undergone
several rounds of conciliation for amicable reunion, but unfortunately
it has not yielded any fruitful result.
5) That the Petitioner No. 1 waives the permanent custody and
guardianship rights of minor daughter 'HETVI' in favor of Petitioner
No. 2 and that the Petitioner No. 1 shall have visitation right of minor
daughter 'HETVI' every weekend and on special occasions as per the
children's wish, comfort and convenience. Considering the non-
financial background of Petitioner No. 2, Petitioner No. 1 shall bear all
educational expenses of the child, HETVI, including school fees and
coaching fees. The Petitioner No. 1 also gives her unconditional
consent for issuance of Guardianship certificate in favor of the
Petitioner No. 2 in any application filed by the Petitioner No. 2 for
obtaining such Guardianship certificate of minor 'HETVI' and hereby
gives an undertaking that the Petitioner No. 1 will not initiate any child
custody case against the Petitioner No. 2 in respect of minor
'HETVI'S' custody or guardianship. However, the visitation rights of
the Petitioner No. 1 to meet with minor 'HETVI' shall not be affected.

6) It is agreed between the parties that Petitioner No. 1 shall pay Rs.
7,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores only) as mutually agreed full and
final settlement amount to the Petitioner No. 2 including past, present
and future maintenance, lump sum permanent alimony and financial
claims of the Petitioner No.2. The Petitioner No. 1 shall deposit Rs.
7,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores only) by cheque into the Nazir
account of the Family Court, Suart at the time of filing divorce petition
vis S.13(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Petitioner No. 2 shall
withdraw the said amount at the time of filing final consent testimonial
affidavits during the second motion in the divorce petition. The
 4

Petitioner No. 2 shall issue the receipt/acknowledgement of the above

said full and final settlement amount.

7) It is agreed and declared, that both petitioners own jointly a

property situated at S-2, Jolly Residency, Surat. It is agreed that the
petitioner no. 1 shall transfer her 50% share in the property in favour
of Petitioner no. 2 immediate post the date of dissolution of the
marriage. Any income, profits, or rent arising out of the property shall
be divided equally between the petitioners.
8) That, as mutually agreed by the both petitioners, both the
petitioners shall assist each other in giving their signature for any
formality as agreed between both the petitioners and no petitioner
shall deny in the cooperation required.
 5

9) The Petitioner No.2 has not filed any application, complaint or

claim against the petitioner no.1, if found, the same shall be
withdrawn.
10) It is mutually agreed that both the petitioners shall
cooperate with each other in any work related to government or semi-
government office, bank, club memberships and complete the
necessary signatures in which both the petitioners have given their
consent.
11) The petitioners have duly acquired their personal articles and
belongings including their ornaments, valuable items, clothes,
documents and all other miscellaneous items from each other to their
utmost satisfaction and in future, none of the petitioners shall raise any
dispute regarding their articles, belongings, valuables, clothes,
documents and other miscellaneous items not received or partly
received. If any such claims are made in future, then the same will be
considered as null and void and shall not be tenable in law.
12) The petitioners agree that they and their concerned relatives
shall not interfere in the personal lives of each other or their respective
families/ relatives/ concerned persons.
13) That hereinafter the petitioners shall be at liberty to stay
separately from each other without any claim, interruption or
disturbance from each other.
14) On 1st February 2020 the Petitioner No. 2 has already and
voluntarily left her Matrimonial House forever. Further, since
thereafter she is residing at B-1010 Green Valley, Vesu, Surat-
395017. and the Petitioner No.1 is residing at A-1210 Ofira Posh,
Vesu, Surat-395017.
15) The petitioners herein are not making any allegation of any
nature, whatsoever against each other or their family members and the
petitioner no.2 is not alleging any cruelty/dowry demand and/or
domestic violence and/or any criminality relating to the matrimonial
relationship between the petitioners herein against the petitioner no. 1
or their respective family members.
16) The petitioners state that their consent to obtain a decree of
divorce by mutual consent has not been obtained by force, fraud,
coercion, misrepresentation, mistake or undue influence of one party
upon the other.
 6

17) The petitioners shall not personally or vicariously indulge in

any act or mischief that would cause nuisance, annoyance,
defamation, disrepute or displeasure to the either party. The
petitioners shall at all times during the subsistence of this 13-HMA
hold themselves as
 7

civilized and responsible persons and shall not commit any negligence
or error such that the purpose of this 13-HMA is defeated.
18) That, both the Petitioners state that there is no impediment to the
dissolution of the marriage. And also, we both the petitioners do
hereby declare that no other legal proceeding is pending in any other
court anywhere in India.
19) That, both the petitioners state that there are no other proceedings
and/or cases pending before any other court of law with regard to their
marriage.
20) That, there has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in
presenting this petition and the same is not time barred.
21) That, the marriage of the petitioners was solemnized at Surat,
the petitioners lastly co-resided together at Surat and the petitioners
are permanent residents of Surat i.e. within the jurisdiction of the
Hon'ble Court, therefore the Hon'ble Court has the competent
jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the present petition.
22) The petitioners have affixed the proper court fees stamp of Rs.
50/-.
23) Therefore, the petitioners most humbly pray that:
i) The petitioners most humbly pray that the Hon'ble Court be
pleased to pass a decree of divorce dissolving their marriage
solemnized on 28/06/2010 in vast interests of justice.

ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any other relief which it
may deem fit and proper.

Place: Surat,

Date: / /2025
Petitioner No. 1

Petitioner No. 2
 8

-:: VERIFICATION::-

I, VIKAS PARAS JAIN, S/O PARAS JAIN, Adult, Age - 45,

Occupation: Job, Address: A-1210, Ofira Posh, Vesu, Surat-395017do hereby
solemnize upon oath of my religion that, the above- mentioned facts are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. To execute a false affidavit is a
criminal offence of which I am aware.

Place:_______,

Date: / /2025
 9

-:: VERIFICATION::-
I, MADHU W/O VIKAS JAI AND D/O RAMESH PAREKH
Adult, Age - 40, Occupation: Job, Address: B-1010 Green Valley, Vesu,
Surat-395017, do hereby solemnize upon oath of my religion that, the above-
mentioned facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
To execute a false affidavit is a criminal offence of which I am aware.

Place:_______

Date: / /2025
 REGULAR SUBMISSION-12th FEB

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MUMBAI CITY CIVIL COURT AT

DINDOSHI, MUMBAI
(DINDOSHI - BORIVALI DIVISION)

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 656 OF 2025 IN

CIVIL SUIT NO. 1066 OF 2025

DISTRICT – MUMBAI

Khushmeet Singh,

S/o. Manjeet Singh,

An Adult, Senior Citizen, Age 63 Years,

Occ. Company Secretary, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,

Residing At Plot No. 56, Raj Colony, Borivali West

Aadhar No. 4720 1488 2488

Mob. No.: +91 – 9399336942

Email Id.: khushmeetsingh56@gmail.com ……………….Applicant{ Original Plaintiff }

VERSUS

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC),

Through its commissioner,

Having an office at 67 Market Road, Sundar Nagar, Borivali East ……………….Respondent

TAKE NOTICE THAT this Hon'ble Court will be moved before His Honour Judge Shri Ram
Mohan Roy presiding over in C.R. No. 6 on this day 20th of January, 2025 at 11:00 AM or so
soon thereafter when the counsel can be heard by Counsel on the part of the Plaintiff for the
following reliefs:

a) That the Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking declaration, possession, and permanent
injunction against the Defendant, restraining them from forcibly evicting him from the suit
premises situated at Plot No. 56, Raj Colony, Borivali West.
b) The Plaintiff most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: May be pleased
to grant ad-interim relief by restraining the Defendant from taking any coercive action,
including forcible eviction or demolition of the suit premises, till the final disposal of the
present suit.

c) Stay the operation and implementation of the Defendant’s notice dated 2nd January directing
the Plaintiff to vacate the premises by 14th February 2025, restraining the Defendant from
taking any coercive action against the Plaintiff, including eviction and demolition, pending the
final disposal of the suit.

d) That pending the hearing and final disposal, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an
order and an injunction to restrain the Defendant, jointly and or severally, servants, relatives,
agents, assigns, family members or otherwise any person claiming through the Defendant from
in any manner, entering, interfering, dispossessing, demolishing, or taking any action against
the Plaintiff’s possession and occupation of the suit premises, situated at Plot No. 56, Raj
Colony, Borivali West, pending the final disposal of the suit

e) That during the pending of hearing and final disposal, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
pass an Order both Interim/ad-interim and/or Ex-party relief in terms of prayer clause (a) to (d)
as above be granted.

f) Costs of the present Notice of Motion be granted for; and

g) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such others as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in interest of justice.

Dated 25th of January, 2025.

Place – Mumbai.

This Notice of Motion is taken out by

Khushi Periwal

Advocate for the Plaintiff

Office Address: 86, Borivali Road, Borivali East

Mob: 9399336953

Mail: khushiperiwal77@gmail.com

Advocate for the Plaintiff

To:

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC),

The Defendants

N.B: The Affidavit of Injunction, the Plaintiff abovenamed is solemnly affirmed/notarized on

the 25th day of January will be used in support of this NOTICE OF MOTION.
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MUMBAI CITY CIVIL COURT AT
DINDOSHI, MUMBAI
(DINDOSHI - BORIVALI DIVISION)

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 656 OF 2025 IN

CIVIL SUIT NO. 1066 OF 2025

Khushmeet Singh ......... Plaintiffs

Versus

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC)……Defendants

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF MOTION

I, Khushmeet Singh , S/o. Manjeet Singh, the abovenamed Plaintiff, Age 63 years, residing at
Plot No. 56, Raj Colony, Borivali West, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

a) That, I have been in uninterrupted possession of the suit premises for the past 40 years. I
have been continuously residing and carrying out commercial activities on the said land, and I
have documentary evidence proving my possession for the last 32 years. Over this period, I
have constructed structures on the land and developed it into a habitable and commercially
viable space.

b) That on 02nd January 2025, the Defendant (BMC) issued a legal notice objecting to my
possession. The said notice directed me to vacate the premises along with all my belongings.
However, the notice was arbitrary, and I was not provided with any valid reason or due process
before its issuance.

c) That I duly replied to the notice, seeking regularization of my possession. Given my long-
standing occupation, I had requested BMC to consider my case for regularization. However,
my request was denied without any reasoned order or fair consideration.

d) That I have filed the present suit seeking declaration, possession & injunction.

e) That despite the pendency of the suit, BMC issued a second notice with a threat of forcible
eviction.
On 7th January, BMC served me with a 2nd notice, directing me to vacate the premises by 14th
February 2025, failing which they threatened to take forceful possession of the land.

f) That the Defendant’s actions violate my legal rights and fundamental principles of law. The
Doctrine of Adverse Possession (Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963), which allows for legal
rights to be claimed over property if possession is uninterrupted for over 30 years.
That I seek the Hon’ble Court’s protection from any coercive action till the final disposal of
my suit.

g) Given that I have been in possession for four decades, any forceful eviction without a proper
legal determination will cause irreparable harm and loss to me. I, therefore, pray for an interim
injunction restraining BMC from taking any coercive action against me.

h) Thus, if this present Notice of Motion is allowed, no harm, prejudice and hardship will be
caused to anyone including the Defendants herein and on the other hand if the present Notice
of Motion is not allowed great harm, prejudice and hardship will be caused to the Plaintiff
which cannot be compensated in terms of monetary grounds and which will further deprive her
of legitimate rights in the present matter.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, this Notice of Motion may
be allowed in the interest of justice and for the balance of convenience in the favour of the
Plaintiff.

i) I am making this Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion and the said Notice of Motion
be made absolute.
th
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, I SHALL BE DUTY BOUND. Dated this 25 January,
2025.
Place – Mumbai.

____________________________________ (PLAINTIFF)
 VERIFICATION

I, Khushmeet Singh S/o. Manjeet Singh abovenamed Plaintiff, Age 63years, residing at Plot
No. 56, Raj Colony, Borivali West, do hereby on solemnly declare that what is stated in the
above Affidavit is verified by me and same is true and correct as per record and as per my
knowledge.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai, Dated this 25th of January, 2025. )

___________________________________ (Plaintiff / Deponent)

Identified, Read and Explained by me, BEFORE ME:

Advocate for Plaintiff

Khushi Periwal
REGULAR SUBMISSION-16th FEB
REGULAR SUBMISSION-7th MARCH
 IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE OF
DISTRICT COURT,
AT DINDOSHI, MUMBAI

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO. 5606 OF 2025

Mr. Gaurang Gandhi,

B-1516, Sapphire Court, Andheri West
9425103402 ……COMPLAINANT

Versus

Mr. Vinay Rathi

D/F-143, Blossom Venue, Andheri West
9827263631 ……ACCUSED

The Complaint is under Section 175(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)

Respectfully Sheweth,

1. That the Complainant is the lawful owner of Flat No. D/F-143, Blossom Venue, Andheri
West (hereinafter referred to as “the said property”).

2. That the Complainant, being a friend of the Accused, allowed the Accused to occupy the
said property on a Leave and License basis vide a registered Leave and License Agreement
dated 5th January 2021, registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Mumbai, for a period
of four years. A copy of the registered Leave and License Agreement is annexed hereto and
marked as Exhibit A.

3. That during the subsistence of the said Leave and License Agreement, the Accused, taking
advantage of the Complainant’s trust, began representing himself as the owner of the said
property in the open market. The Complainant, due to the friendly relationship, did not initially
object to this misrepresentation.

4. That the Complainant has recently discovered that the Accused, fraudulently representing
himself as the owner, entered into an Agreement for Sale with a third party, Mr. Ujjwal
Agarwal, for the sale of the said property.

5. That in furtherance of this fraudulent scheme, the Accused fabricated a forged Sale Deed,
purporting to show that the Complainant had sold the said property to the Accused. This forged
Sale Deed bears the forged signature of the Complainant. The said Sale Deed is not registered
or scanned with the sub-registrar. A Notarized copy was, however, created. A copy of the forged
Sale Deed is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit B.

6. That the Accused received a token amount of Rs. 2,00,000 from the said third party, Mr.
Ujjwal Agarwal, as part of the fraudulent transaction.
7. That upon detailed investigation, the Complainant discovered that the Agreement for Sale
with the third party and the notarized copy of the forged sale deed not only bears the forged
signature of the Complainant but also contains forged notary details, including a false notary
stamp, fee, and registered serial number.

8. That the Accused has thereby committed offenses punishable under Sections 318, 259, 260,
264, and 266 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

9. That the Complainant attempted to file a First Information Report (FIR) with the Andheri
Station (West) Police Station, but the police officers refused to register the same, stating that
it was a civil dispute.

10. That the Complainant then approached the Senior Police Officer, Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Mr. Vishnu Singh, but again, the request for registration of an FIR was denied.

11. That the Complainant has sufficient documentary evidence to prove the commission of the
aforesaid offenses.

12. That the Complainant has no other efficacious remedy except to approach this Hon’ble
Court under Section 175(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for directing the
Andheri Station (West) Police Station, to register an FIR and investigate the matter.

PRAYER

In light of the foregoing, the Complainant respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased
to:
a. Direct the Andheri Station (West) Police Station to register an FIR against the Accused for
the offenses punishable under Sections 318, 259, 260, 264, and 266 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS), 2023.
b. Direct the Andheri Station (West) Police Station to conduct a thorough investigation into the
matter.
c. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.

Andheri West, Complainant

Mumbai
Date:12th March, 2025 Through
Counsel for Complainant
 Verification

I, Mr. Gaurang Gandhi, the Complainant herein, do hereby verify that the contents of
paragraphs 1 to 12 of the above Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

Verified at Mumbai on 12th March, 2025.

Signature
Mr. Gaurang Gandhi
 IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT MUMBAI

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5678 OF 2025

IN CONNECTION WITH FIR NO. 1056 OF ANDHERI STATION POLICE

STATION, MUMBAI

Mr. Vinay Rathi

D/F-143, Blossom Venue, Andheri West ………Applicant/Accused

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ..…... Respondent

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 of BHARTIYA

NYAYA SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023

Respectfully Sheweth,

1. That the Applicant/Accused, Mr. Vinay Rathi is a law-abiding citizen and a resident of
D/F-143, Blossom Venue, Andheri West.
2. That the Applicant/Accused entered into a Leave and License Agreement with Mr.
Gaurang Gandhi for a period of 4 years, which was duly registered with the Registrar.
3. That during the subsistence of the Leave and License Agreement, the
Applicant/Accused, in good faith, represented himself as having an interest in the
property, and this was never objected to by the Licensor, fostering a belief of implied
consent.
4. That the Applicant/Accused entered into an Agreement for Sale with a third party,
believing he had the right to do so based on the perceived acquiescence of the Licensor.
5. That the Applicant/Accused denies the allegations of forging any sale deed or the
signature of the Licensor or any Notary. The Applicant/Accused states that any
document produced will be a matter of evidence.
6. That the Applicant/Accused has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence due to a
misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the facts.
7. That the Licensor, after a lapse of time, has now raised allegations of forgery and fraud,
which are baseless and motivated.
8. That the Applicant/Accused has received a token amount from the third party in good
faith, believing he had the right to enter into the Agreement for Sale.
9. That the Applicant/Accused is willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by
any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court.
10. That the Applicant/Accused is apprehensive of being arrested by the police in
connection with the alleged offence.
11. That the alleged offence is based on documentary evidence, and there is no necessity
for custodial interrogation of the Applicant/Accused.
12. That the Applicant/Accused has deep roots in society and is not likely to abscond or
tamper with the evidence.
13. That the Applicant/Accused is ready and willing to furnish a personal bond and surety
as directed by this Hon’ble Court.
 14. That the Applicant/Accused has been informed that the licensor has attempted to file
an FIR, but the police have declined to register it, citing it as a civil dispute.
15. That the Application is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
accused.

PRAYER

In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to:

a. Grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant/Accused, Mr. Vinay Rathi, in connection with FIR
No. 1056 of Andheri Station Police Station, Mumbai.

b. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.

Mumbai,

Date: 12th March, 2025

Advocate for the Applicant/Accused,

Khushi Periwal,

8469189452
 Verification

I, Mr. Vinay Rathi, the Applicant/Accused above named, do hereby verify that the contents of
paragraphs 1 to 15 of the above application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Mumbai,

Date: 12th March, 2025 Advocate for the Applicant/Accused,

Khushi Periwal,

8469189452
 REGULAR SUBMISSION-17TH MARCH

IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2345 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Akshay Bohra,

A-1406, Skyland, Andheri West. ... Petitioner

VERSUS

1. State of Maharashtra (Through Public Prosecutor, High Court)

2. Mr Rajiv Gandhi Police Officer, (Andheri Station Police Station) ... Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR

ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

TO,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His Companion Judges of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY

SHEWETH:

1. That the Petitioner, Mr. Akshay Bohra, is an Indian citizen residing at A-1406,
Skyland, Andheri West.
2. That on 15th February 2025, the Petitioner, due to extreme emotional distress and
frustration, committed an act of criminal contempt by throwing papers in the court.
He immediately apologized for his actions.
3. That the Hon’ble High Court took cognizance of the said act and directed Respondent
No. 2, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, to arrest and detain the Petitioner.
4. That, pursuant to the Hon’ble Court’s order, Respondent No. 2 arrested the Petitioner
and took him into custody.
5. That the Petitioner, through his Advocate, moved an urgent bail application before the
Hon’ble High Court on the same day.
6. That the Hon’ble High Court, after hearing the submissions of the Petitioner’s
Advocate and the representative of Respondent No. 2, granted ad-interim bail to the
Petitioner subject to a cash bond of Rs. 4,00,000/-.
7. That the Petitioner immediately complied with the condition of the bail by depositing
the cash bond and obtaining the necessary receipts.
 8. That the Petitioner’s Advocate approached Respondent No. 2 at approximately 10:00
PM on the same day, requesting the release of the Petitioner, presenting the bail order
compliance proof.
9. That Respondent No. 2 refused to release the Petitioner, citing the excuse that the
written order of the Hon’ble High Court had not been communicated to him.
10. That the continued detention of the Petitioner despite the grant of bail and compliance
with its conditions is illegal and arbitrary.

GROUNDS:

1. That the detention of the Petitioner after the grant of ad-interim bail and compliance
with its conditions is a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
2. That the refusal of Respondent No. 2 to release the Petitioner on the pretext of non-
receipt of the written order is arbitrary and unreasonable, as the fact of the bail order
was communicated during the hearing, and proof of cash bond deposit was shown.
3. That the continued detention of the Petitioner constitutes illegal detention and
amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
4. That the police officer is bound to follow the verbal orders of the court, especially
when compliance with the condition of the bail is proved.
5. That the delay caused by the police officer is a gross miscarriage of justice.

PRAYER:

In light of the above, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

1. Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to produce the Petitioner,
Mr. Akshay Bohra, before this Hon’ble Court and to release him forthwith.
2. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
 VERIFICATION:

I, Mr. Keshav Lahoti, Advocate for the Petitioner, do hereby verify that the contents of
paragraphs 1 to 10 of the above petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief, based on the information received and records available.

Verified at Andheri on this 12th March, 2025.

[Advocate's Signature]

Keshav Lahoti,

Advocate for the Petitioner,

(Advocate's Enrollment Number- 678935483987),

(Advocate's Contact Information- 9534570000)

 REGULAR SUBMISSION-23rd MARCH

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF MR. RAMESH PERIWAL

I, Mr. Ramesh Periwal daughter of Ishwar Periwal, age 59, Indian Inhabitant, residing
at Ratna shyam residency, Vesu, Surat hereby revoke any previous will and/or
Testamentary Writing that I may have executed and declare this to be my last Will and
Testament:—
1. I appoint Khushi Periwal and (2) Muskan Periwal to be the Executors of my this
Will. They shall hereafter be called “My Executors”.
2. I hereby authorise and direct my executors to spend a sum to the extent of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousands only) out of my Estate for my funeral
and obituary rites. They shall not be liable for rendering any account to anyone for
the moneys so spent by them for the said ceremonies.
3. I have my wife Mrs. Anju Ramesh Periwal and three children as unmarried
daughters Khushi Periwal, Muskan Periwal and Mahek Periwal, as my legal heirs.
4. Amongst my properties movable and immovable are the followings:—
(a) All my equity shares in Superb Agencies Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at
Ring Road, Surat. I am the major shareholder of the said company. The said
company has also got immoveable properties.
(b) Ownership Flat bearing No. B-301 on 3rd Floor of the building known as
‘Periwal House’ of Aashirwad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. at Vesu, Surat
alongwith five shares of the said Aashirwad Co-operative Housing. Society Ltd.
representing ownership of the said Flat. The said flat is my self-acquired
property.
(c) Houses bearing Nos. A-4 and B-36 situated at Green Vally Bungalows, Piplod,
Surat.
(d) My car with registration no. GJ-02-AB-5678
(e) Share in the assets of my HUF viz. Periwal Unity HUF.
(f) The Ownership offices/premises bearing Nos. L-25 & L-26 at Surat Textile
Market. The said offices exclusively belong to me and are my self-acquired
properties.
(g) Bank accounts; shares; securities; debentures; investments in Unit Trust of
India, National Saving Scheme, Public Provident Fund Scheme and jewellery
etc.; and
(h) Any other residuary estate standing in my name or belonging to me or
inherited or bequeathed to me or acquired by me at any time hereinafter or
otherwise.
5. I hereby give Devise and Bequeath the estate mentioned in aforesaid Clauses
4(a), 4(c), 4(f), 4(g) and 4(h) solely and absolutely to my wife Mrs. Anju Ramesh
Periwal. My wife shall be fully entitled to deal with the same in the manner as she
deems fit and proper and at her own discretion. If my wife predeceases me in that
 event, the said estate shall go to all my three children in equal proportion.
6. I hereby give Devise and Bequeath the estate mentioned in aforesaid Clause 4(b)
above solely to my wife Mrs. Anju Ramesh Periwal for her life time and thereafter
the same shall belong to my daughter Ms. Muskan Periwal. My wife during her life
time will not be entitled to deal with the said flat without the written and specific
consent from my daughter. However, if any of my daughters remain unmarried
she/they shall have life interest of residence in the said flat.
7. I hereby give Devise and Bequeath the estate mentioned in aforesaid Clause
4(d) above solely, exclusively and absolutely to my daughter Ms. Khushi Periwal.
8. I hereby give Devise and Bequeath the estate mentioned in aforesaid Clause
4(e) to my wife Mrs. Anju Ramesh Periwal and my daughter Ms. Muskan Periwal in
equal proportion.
9. I have made this Will in my good and sound health and after fully understanding
the same in all aspects.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I the said Mr. Ramesh Periwal son of Ishwar Periwal have
hereunto set my hand at Surat this 23rd day of March 2025.

SIGNED AND DECLARED BY )

Mr. Ramesh Periwal, )
the Testator abovenamed as )
and for his last Will and )
Testament in the presence of )
us present at the same time )
who at his request in his )
presence and in the presence )
of each other have hereunto )
set and subscribed our respective )
names as witnesses: )

1. Suresh Kumar Chandak

Address: Capital Greens, Surat.
2. Santosh Kumar Chandak
Address: Laurels Valley, Surat.

Signature of Testator:
_________________

Signature of Witness (1):

___________________
Signature of Witness (2):
___________________