IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA. LD.

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELH

CS DJ ADJ 50/2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

SH. SURAT SINGH …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

SMT. KAMLESH SHARMA …DEFENDANT

REPLY / OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF TO THE

APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC
READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS
1. That the present Reply/Objections are being filed by the Plaintiff to the
application filed by Defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 CPC. That at the very outset,
it is respectfully submitted that the said application is a gross abuse of the
process of law, is devoid of merits, and has been filed with a sole mala
fide intent to protract the proceedings and derail the course of justice.

2. That it is a trite principle of law, repeatedly enunciated by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court as well as by various High Courts, that while adjudicating
upon an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required
to confine itself strictly to the averments contained in the plaint alone,
which are to be taken as correct at this preliminary stage. That the pleas
raised in the written statement or defense, or any extraneous materials
 brought in by the Defendant, cannot be looked into for the purpose of
rejecting a plaint.

3. That the plaint, when read holistically and in its true letter and spirit,
manifestly discloses a valid and subsisting cause of action, is properly
valued, duly stamped with the requisite ad-valorem court fees, and is
fully maintainable in law and on facts. Hence, the objections sought to be
raised by the Defendant are illusory, baseless, and devoid of any legal
sanctity.

4. That the Defendant’s application is, in effect, an attempt to invite this

Hon’ble Court to prejudge disputed questions of fact which can only be
adjudicated upon after framing of issues and trial. That such an endeavor
is impermissible in law, and therefore the present application deserves to
be dismissed with exemplary costs.

PARA-WISE REPLY

1. That the contents of Para No.1of the application is based on false, frivolous,
or bogus facts are vehemently denied to the extent that the said case is
pending before the Hon’ble Court and is fixed for 15.09.2025. That the
Plaintiff has instituted the present suit on the basis of genuine, subsisting,
and legally enforceable rights flowing from the agreement executed between
the parties, duly supported by documentary and circumstantial evidence.
That the plaint raises specific triable issues warranting judicial
determination, and therefore the averments of the Defendant are wholly
untenable.

2. That the contents of Para No.2 of the application are wrong and denied. That
it is emphatically denied that the Plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble
Court with clean hands or has suppressed material facts. That the Plaintiff
has disclosed all material particulars necessary for the adjudication of the
controversy, including but not limited to the execution of the Agreement to
Sell, the substantial part-payment already made, and the continued
possession and enjoyment of the property through a tenant. That the Plaintiff
has come before this Hon’ble Court with utmost bona fides, whereas it is the
Defendant who seeks to obfuscate the true facts.

3(a.) That the contents of Para No. 3(a) are vehemently denied. That the
assertion of Defendant that the plaint is barred on account of improper
valuation or non-payment of ad-valorem court fees is patently
misconceived. That the Plaintiff has duly valued the suit in accordance with
law and has affixed the requisite ad-valorem court fee of ₹26,750/-, as
mandated by the Court Fees Act. That the receipts of the said court fees
have already been annexed to the plaint. That the objection of the Defendant
is therefore wholly frivolous and unsustainable in law.

3(b.) That the contents of Para No.3(b) are wrong and denied. That the
allegation that the Plaintiff has no possession in the suit property is false and
misleading. That the Plaintiff continues to exercise rights of constructive
possession through his tenant, who is paying rent to the Plaintiff. That such
possession, being juridical possession recognized by law, is sufficient to
protect the rights of Plaintiff and enforce the contract. That in any event, the
question of possession is a matter of fact which cannot be adjudicated at the
threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

3(c.) That the contents of Para No. 3(c) are wrong and denied to the extent
that the Agreement to Sell dated 08.03.2020 originally stipulated that the
balance sale consideration was to be paid by 31.08.2020, the said condition
was subsequently extended by mutual agreement of the parties till late
November, 2020, keeping in view the unprecedented difficulties caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic. That it is submitted that the Defendant,
recognizing the bona fides of the Plaintiff and in light of the long-standing
cordial relations between the parties, voluntarily consented to such
extension and accepted the same without protest. That it is pertinent to
mention here that mutual modification of the contractual timeline stands
evidenced from the contemporaneous record. That the Plaintiff, having
already paid a substantial sum of ₹22,00,000/- out of the agreed
consideration, has always been ready and willing to discharge the remaining
balance within the extended period. That in these circumstances, the
Defendant is estopped in law and in equity from setting up a plea of
forfeiture or default, having herself acquiesced in and benefited from the
extension so granted. That the contention that the Agreement to Sell dated
08.03.2020 does not confer ownership rights and hence the suit is liable to
dismissal is misconceived. That it is a settled proposition of law under the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 that an agreement to sell, though not creating
ownership by itself, creates an enforceable obligation between the
contracting parties, entitling the aggrieved party to maintain a suit for
specific performance. Therefore, the present suit is perfectly maintainable.
That it is denied that the Plaintiff has failed to pay the total sale
consideration. That in fact, the Plaintiff has already paid a substantial sum of
₹22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Lacs only) to the Defendant, which fact
stands evidenced. That the Plaintiff has always been, and continues to
remain, ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, thereby
fulfilling his obligations under the agreement. That the plea of forfeiture
raised by the Defendant is inequitable, mala fide and contrary to the settled
principle that a party in default cannot be allowed to benefit from its own
wrong.
4.That the contents of Para No. 4 are wrong and denied. That the sweeping
allegation that the plaint is without cause of action, void, or illegal is devoid of
merit. That the plaint, on a meaningful reading, discloses a subsisting and
enforceable cause of action arising from the failure of Defendant to execute the
sale deed despite receipt of substantial consideration. That such disputes cannot
be brushed aside at the threshold and certainly require adjudication upon
evidence.

5. That the contents of Para No. 5 and 6 are denied to the extent that the
remaining averments are denied for want of merit. That the application of
Defendant is an afterthought, devoid of substance, and liable to be dismissed.

PRAYER
In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Dismiss the Defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with
Section 151 CPC with exemplary costs, holding that the present plaint is validly
instituted, duly stamped, properly valued and maintainable;

b) Declare that the plaint discloses a clear cause of action warranting trial and
adjudication on merits;

c) Pass any such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.