~ 1 ~

District South 24 Parganas

IN THE Ld. 10
th
COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. Divn.) AT ALIPORE

Title Suit No. 0734 of 2013
Serial. No. 03 of 2013

Soleman Sk. & Ors. . Plaintiffs

Vs
Ainal Sk. & Ors. Defendants

WRITTEN OBJECTION FILLED BY THE DEFENDANT NO. 11 AGAINST
AN APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFFS UNDER ORDER 39 RULE I&II
READ WITHH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

The humble objection
petition of the Defendant No.
11 in the aforesaid suit.



Most respectfully sheweth:

1. That the Application under Order 39 rule I& II read with section
151 CPcode filed by the plaintiffs herein after called and referred
as the said application is neither maintainable in law nor in its
presence form.



~ 2 ~


2. That the plaintiffs have filed the said application based on some
false, fabulous, mischievous and wrongful allegation against this
answering defendant with intent to some illegal, wrongful gain by
deceiving this defendant from their legitimate claim as such the
plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the said
application.

3. That the Plaintiffs being driven their ill motive have filed the said
application with an attempt to achieve some unlawful gain that
the said application is barred by principles of estoppels, waiver
and acquiescence.

4. That the said application is defective one and hopelessly violated
the provision of law.

5. That the said application has been filed by the plaintiffs just to
harass, hackle and persecute this defendant and to plunge into
deep pecuniary trouble.

6. That the filings of the said application by the plaintiffs against this
defendant are an abuse of process of law.

7. That this answering defendant denied all allegations and dispute
all statements made by the plaintiffs in the said application save
and except those are specifically.




~ 3 ~


8. That the instant suit is barred for non discloser of material facts.
The plaintiffs are guilty of Suppression Vari and Suggeesstio
falsi. Hence the suit is liable to dismissed on this ground alone.

9. That the statement made in paragraph No.1 of the said application
is matter of record.

10. That the statements made in paragraph No.2 of the said
application are distortion of facts, hence it is denied.

11. That the answering defendant denies the statements made
in paragraph No. 3 & 4 of the said application except those are
matter of record and the plaintiffs are put to stick proof their off.

12. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph No.5 of
the said application your petitioner modestly submit that this
defendant have purchased the entire land a little bit more or less
or be the same measuring an area 23.66 Decimal + 20 Decimal +
26 Decimal = 69.66 Decimal land comprised in the R.S. & L.R Dag
No. 158, 159 & 160 respectively in the Mouza Dulalpur, District
South 24 Parganas which is more fully and specifically describe in
the conveyance deed annexure in the suit as marked annexure
C and became the absolute owner of the aforesaid property by
virtue of the said registered deed of conveyance which is
registered in Book I, CD Volume No.18, Pages from 5360 to 5380
being No. 06657 for the year 2012 and certificate of registration
issued by office of the Additional District Sub-Registrar of
Bishnupur West Bengal.
~ 4 ~


13. That the answering defendant vehemently opposes the
statement made in paragraph No.6 of the said application, your
petitioner state and submit that the defendant No. 11 in
possession since then purchase and the plaintiff not in a
possession in the alleged suit properties since 29/1/1993.
Actually the plaintiffs have filed the said application with a mala
fide intention to dispose this answering defendant from the suit
property.

14. That the averments made in paragraph 8 the plaintiffs only
submit or annex the deed of defendant No. 1 & 12-15 and not
mentioned any references regarding their right upon the suit
property by which the plaintiffs kept in dark the Ld. Court. And
also is differ from the suit property, the document submitted by
the plaintiffs clearly shown the transaction of total land area is
69.66 Decimal which the defendant No. 11 purchase from the
defendant No. 1 & 12-15 and the defendant No. 1 most part of the
suit property purchase from the father of the Plaintiffs and other
share holder & recorded owner, while the suit claim on total 93
Decimal. It is noted that it is settled principle of Law that when
there is no piece of document shown by the plaintiff to show
prima facie case of their legal rights and also the alleged cause of
action for their filing of instant interim application and suit the
question of considering the Interim order does not arise. It is the
plaintiffs burden duty to show prima facie case to obtain any
interim relief.


~ 5 ~


15. That the answering defendant vehemently opposes the
statement made in paragraph No. 9 of the said application. The
plaintiff No.1is not in possession since long past i.e.29/1/93 and
other are also since a long time while the defendant No. 1 & 12-15
are the recorded owner and they are physically enjoyed the suit
property since a long time so the question of harvesting does not
arise at all. The plaintiffs prepared a cock and bull story as
reveals from the paragraph 9 of the said application. The
answering defendant purchase the deed annexure property in the
suit as marked annexure C and became the absolute owner of
the aforesaid property in accordance with law.

16. That the statements made in paragraph 10 are totally false,
it is false to say the plaintiffs have 2/5
th
shared in suit properties
and they are in possession with the defendant jointly.

17. That the statements made in paragraph No. 11 are baseless,
meaningless and bogus, hence denied. Actually the father of
plaintiffs and defendant No.1 has already partitioned R.S. & L.R.
Dag No. 158, 159, 115,122 & 123 by and between the by the
mutation pray letter dated 11.6.1998 to the office of the B.L &
L.R.O. Bishnupur, letter prayed by the father of plaintiffs and
according to the said partition their names were mutated before
the B.L.& L.R.O. office and separate purcha issued in their
individual name and afterwards the plaintiffs father and plaintiffs
sold his properties to different purchaser and also defendant No.
1. And the plaintiffs have no any right, title upon the R.S. & L.R.
Dag No. 160. So the prima facie case of their legal rights upon the
~ 6 ~

alleged suit property does not stand. Accordingly the suit is not
maintainable and the question of injunction does not arise at all.

18. That the averments made in paragraph 9 & 12 are more
fully same of each other and nothing a piece of evidence regarding
the title of suit property and it is false to say that cause of action
arose two months back when the plaintiffs doing harvesting on
suit property. It is false to say that the defendant No. 11 and his
men and agent are threatened the plaintiffs or defraud the rights
of plaintiffs. These false averments are made to create a fake
cause of action; it is liable to strict proof. Hence suit is liable to be
dismissed for non-discloser of exact cause of action.

19. That in response to the statements made in paragraph No.
13, this answering defendant state with assertion the suit is not
maintainable at all as such there is no prima facie case and the
balance of convenience and inconvenience are not infavour of
plaintiffs for granting an order of injunction, the plaintiffs come
before this court with un cleaned hand more over the plaintiff No.
1 has institute the instant case as well as filed this said application
without taking concern from the other plaintiffs.

20. That the plaintiffs are not entitled to get an injunction as
prayed in the prayer portion of the said application.

21. This answering defendant craves for kind indulgence of this
Ld. Court and this Ld. Court may be pleased to allow this
defendant to raise additional grounds, if any, at the time of
hearing the suit.
~ 7 ~



WHEREOF, in the above facts the
circumstances of the case, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Ld. Court
may be pleased to dismiss the suit filed by
the plaintiffs against this defendant/
reject the injunction application along
with exemplary costs in the interest of
Justice and equity.






V E R I F I C A T I O N
I MANOJ AGARWALLA son of late Basant Kumar Agarwalla one of the
Director of Splen Mercantile Private Limited having its office 46 B, Rafi
Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata-700 016 on behalf of the said company,
the Defendant No. 11 herein above, do hereby verify and declare that,
what is stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
information.

Place: Kolkata
Date:
DEFENDANT No. 11
~ 8 ~


AFFIDAVIT

I, MANOJ AGARWALLA son of late Basant Kumar Agarwalla, aged
about years, by caste Hindu, by profession Business, one of the
Director of Splen Mercantile Private Limited having its office 46 B, Rafi
Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata-700 016 on behalf of the said company,
herein above solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows
1. I submit that, I am the defendant No. 11 in the above case. I am well
conversant with the facts of the case. Hence, I am swearing to the
contents of this affidavit.
2. I submit that, today I have filed written objection in the above Suit.
3. I submit that, the averments made in paragraphs of the accompanying
are true and correct to the best of and information.
I, the deponent herein, do hereby declare that this is my name, signature
and that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and information.




D E P O N E N T
Known to me & Identified by me,
Draft prepared in my office

Advocate,