1
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE,
AT INDRAPRASTHA, DELHI
C. S. NO. 432 OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAJESH KUMAR ………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AMIT SHARMA ………DEFENDANT
INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
01. REPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE
PLAINTIFF TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT 1-10
FILED BY THE DEFENDANT
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF
Adv. Govind Raj Suthar
LCPC/4.0/432
D-786, DLF Tower, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi – 110014
M: +91-8003645485
E:
[email protected]Date: 15.04.2025
Place: New Delhi
2
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE,
AT INDRAPRASTHA, DELHI
C. S. NO. 432 OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAJESH KUMAR ………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AMIT SHARMA ………DEFENDANT
REPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF TO THE WRITTEN
STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT
REPLICATION TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:
1. That the contents of Para 1 are a matter of record and
therefore require no response from the Plaintiff.
2. That the contents of Para 2 are denied. The facts stated by
the plaintiff are correct and complete, and no other set of
facts exists in relation to the cause of action mentioned in
the present suit. The suit is legally maintainable, and a
decree should be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
3. That the contents of Para 3 are completely denied. No
separate response is required, as the reply has already been
provided in Para 2 of this replication.
4. That the contents of Para 4 do not require any response.
5. That the contents of Para 5 are completely denied. The
defendant is not a law-abiding citizen, as he has been
residing in the suit property—owned by the plaintiff—for
the past three years without paying any rent, which is a
clear violation of the law. Furthermore, instead of
acknowledging his wrongful conduct, the defendant has
falsely claimed ownership of the suit property. This
litigation has arisen solely due to the defendant’s illegal
3
actions, which have resulted in the violation of the
plaintiff’s rights.
6. That the contents of Para 6 are a matter of record and do
not require any response.
7. That the contents of Para 7 are a matter of record and do
not require any response.
8. That the contents of Para 8 are a matter of record and do
not require any response.
9. That the contents of Para 9 are completely denied, as no
meeting was held regarding the transfer of title of the suit
property. Furthermore, no sale deed bearing number
418/2022 (hereinafter referred to as the 'second sale deed')
exists.
10. That the contents of Para 10 are completely denied, as no
payment amounting to ₹1,20,00,000/- has been received
from the defendants. Moreover, the amount of ₹50,000/-
has not been refunded to the defendant; instead, it has been
adjusted against the rent for two months, namely February
and March 2022, due to the defendant’s financial crisis.
11. That the contents of Para 11 are completely denied, as no
sale deed bearing number 139/2000 (hereinafter referred to
as the 'first sale deed') was ever executed, nor was any true
copy of the sale deed provided to the defendants by the
plaintiff. The only admission in this regard is that the
plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit property.
12. That the contents of Para 12 are completely denied, as the
property has never been mutated, and no property tax has
been paid by the defendant to the MCD. All annexures
containing receipts for property tax payments are entirely
4
forged and do not exist. As of today, the suit property is
still registered in the names of the plaintiff and his wife.
13. That the contents of Para 13 are completely denied,
except for the fact that the legal notice was sent by the
plaintiff to the defendants on 06.12.2024.
14. That the contents of Para 14 are completely denied, as the
facts provided are beyond the plaintiff's knowledge.
Furthermore, there is inconsistency in the defendant’s
claims. On one hand, the defendant admits that through the
second sale deed, he became the rightful owner of the
property, and on the other hand, he acknowledges that a
rent agreement was terminated on 1st March 2022. This
clearly indicates that the defendants are building their case
on forged documents and a fabricated story.
15. That the contents of Para 15 are completely denied and
do not require a response, as the same has already been
addressed in the preceding Paras of the replication.
16. That the contents of Para 16 are completely denied and
do not require a response, as the same has already been
addressed in the preceding Paras of the replication.
PARA WISE REPLY:
17. That the contents of Para 17 are completely denied, as the
defendant, in his defense, has relied solely on a false
narrative supported by forged documents. Additionally, the
defendant attempts to defend himself by commenting on
the conduct of others, without considering his own actions
and character.
18. That the contents of Para 18 do not require a response, as
they are a matter of record.
5
19. That the contents of Para 19 are denied to the extent that
the description of the suit property is a matter of record.
The other averments related to the ownership and the
alleged hypothetical sale deed made by the defendants are
completely denied, as the plaintiff has not entered into any
such sale deed. Moreover, the failure to annex the actual
sale deed of the suit property with the plaint does not
imply that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff,
as the present suit pertains to rent arrears and not to the
title of the suit property.
20. That the contents of Para 20 do not require a response, as
it is a matter of record.
21. That the contents of Para 21 do not require a response, as
it is a matter of record.
22. That the contents of Para 22 do not require a response, as
it is a matter of record.
23. That the contents of Para 23 are completely denied, as no
such settlement was made between the parties, except for
the adjustment of two months' rent for February and March
2022.
24. That the contents of Para 24 are denied to the extent that
the defendants have paid the rent timely during the first
year of the rent agreement.
That the Contents of Para 24(1) are completely denied
and needed no reply as the averments are already denied
with reason in above para’s.
That the contents of Para 24(2) are completely denied, as
the same averments have been made in the above Paras.
That the contents of Para 24(3) are completely denied, as
the defendants are applying the previous principle of not
6
providing documents, which implies that no such
documents exist. The response to this has already been
provided in the above Paras, and therefore, no further reply
is necessary.
That the contents of Para 24(4) are completely denied, as
the WhatsApp chats are entirely with the defendant. The
Form 63 of the BSA, 2023, is annexed in the plaint, and
due to the unavailability of the tech expert, Part B could
not be attached. However, if required by the Hon'ble
Court, it will be provided.
25. That the contents of Para 25 are completely denied in
their entirety, including all the sub-points, as the same
averments have been repeated and addressed in the above
statements. Therefore, no further reply is necessary.
26. That the contents of Para 26 are completely denied in
their entirety, as the same averments have been repeated
and addressed in the above statements. Therefore, no
further reply is necessary.
27. That the contents of Para 27 are completely denied and
do not require a response. However, the defendant admits
that they are in possession of the said suit property.
28. That the contents of Para 28 themselves serve as proof
before this Hon'ble Court that the real cause of action
between the parties, or the dispute, is related to rent
recovery and not a title dispute. In their reply to the legal
notice, the defendants have admitted to different facts, yet
in their written statement, they have presented an entirely
different set of facts, with not a single fact connected to the
real cause of action. The defendants are taking this Court
for granted by manipulating the facts of the case through
7
their submissions. Having made these false claims, they
are now attempting to defend themselves by using the
statement 'without prejudice to the Defendant’s rights.
29. That the contents of Para 29 do not require a response, as
it is a matter of record.
30. That the contents of Para 30 are completely denied in
their entirety, including all the sub-points, as the same
averments have been repeated and addressed in the above
statements. Therefore, no further reply is necessary
31. That the contents of Para 31 are completely denied, as the
proper legal violations, along with accurate calculations,
have been presented in the plaint for the reference of this
Hon'ble Court. The defendants have made averments based
on the same sale deed, which are entirely denied and false
in themselves, and therefore do not require a response
32. That the contents of Para 32 are completely denied in
their entirety, as the same averments have been repeated
and addressed in the above statements. Therefore, no
further reply is necessary
33. That the contents of Para 33 are completely denied in
their entirety, as the same averments have been repeated
and addressed in the above statements. Therefore, no
further reply is necessary.
34. That the contents of Para 34 are a matter of record and
hence do not require a response.
35. That the contents of Para 35 are completely denied in
their entirety, as the same averments have been repeated
and addressed in the above statements. Therefore, no
further reply is necessary.
8
36. That the contents of Para 36 are a matter of record and
hence do not require a response.
37. That the contents of Para 37 are a matter of record and
hence do not require a response.
38. That the contents of Para 38 are a matter of record and
hence do not require a response.
39. That the contents of Para 39 are a matter of record and
hence do not require a response.
40. That the contents of Para 40 are completely denied.
41. That the contents of Para 41 of the prayer clause of the
written statement are baseless, and it is submitted that the
defendant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought
PRAYER
42. In the facts and circumstances as mentioned in the Plaint
and Replication, the Plaintiff prays to the Hon’ble court to:
a) Reject the defense of the Defendant and to decree
the suit in favour of plaintiff by allowing the relief
sought in the Plaint.
b) Grant any other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit, just, and equitable in the interest of justice.
VERIFICATION
Verified at Indraprastha on this the 15th day of April 2025 That
the contents of the aforesaid paras 1 to 42 of the plaint are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and those of
paras 01 to 42 of the plaint are believed to be true on the basis of
the legal opinion received believed to be correct. Last para. is a
prayer to this Hon’ble Court.
9
RAJESH KUMAR
PLAINTIFF
Date: 15.04.2025
Place: New Delhi
10
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE,
AT INDRAPRASTHA, DELHI
C.S. NO. 432 OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAJESH KUMAR ………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AMIT SHARMA ………DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Rajesh Kumar S/O Saurav Kumar R/O A-80, Vinayak Vihar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi, 110005, aged about 53 years do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am the Plaintiff in the instant Suit and I am
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case,
am competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. That the contents of the accompanying reply have been
drafted by my counsel as per my instructions and the
contents of the same have been duly read and understood
by me and after fully understanding the contents of the
same, I hereby state that the facts stated therein are all true
and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Indraprastha on the 15th day of April 2025 that the
contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
