IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. Divin .

)
MALOUT.

Supinder Kaur

Versus

Jangir Kaur etc.

Suit for Recovery

Written Statement on behalf of defendant no. 1
R/Sir,
It is submitted as under:Pre-Objections:1.

That

the

suit

of

the

plaintiffs

is

not

maintainable in the present form.

2.

That plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus

standie

to

file

the

present

suit.

The

replying

defendant along with defendants no. 2, 3, 4 & 5 are

legal and natural heirs of the deceased Jag Singh. As
per

law

of

inheritance

replying

defendant

and

defendants no. 2 to 5 have by birth right in the suit

property

and

plaintiffs

have

no

concern

with

the

property left by deceased Jag Singh.

3.

That previously plaintiff had filed the suit for

permanent
Branch

injunction

Manager

titled

etc.

as

regarding

Supinder
the

Kaur

present

V/s.

subject

matter which was withdrawn on 06-12-2014 from the Court

of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Malout. So order 2
rule 2 of C.P.C. is applicable. Plaintiff has no right
to

file

regarding

the
the

present
same

suit

subject

on

same

matter

cause
against

of

action

the

same

parties. So the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.

That

the

plaintiff

has

filed

suit

for

declaration on the basis of forged and fabricated will

prepared in connivance with her brother, father and

-2brother-in-law and her previous counsel Jagdev Singh

Brar, titled as Supinder Kaur V/s. Ranjit Kaur etc.
which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.D.),
Malout. So the succession of the Jag Singh was not
decided. So plaintiffs have no right to file suit for
recovery against the defendants.
5.

That the replying defendants along with deceased

Jag Singh have Joint Accounts and they have deposited

their Savings in the banks and both have equal rights
to

withdraw

the

specifically
survivor.

amount

and

mentioned

Moreover

in

in

mode

the

other

of

operation

accounts

accounts

was

either

the

or

replying

defendant was a registered nominee of the deceased Jag

Singh.

She

Plaintiff

has
has

full
no

right

right

to

to

withdraw

file

the

the

amount.

present

suit

regarding the suit amount.

6.

That the suit of the plaintiff is collusive

between plaintiff and her husband Darshan Singh just

only to harass the replying defendant.Because defendant
on 24-12-11, I visited bank along with my son Darshan
Singh where Darshan Singh along with bank official got
thump imression of defendant on some papers and got the
amount. Due to my old age and disease i do not know on
what documents Darshan Singh got my thumb impression.
Suit of the plaintiff is vague against law and facts.
7.

That the plaintiffs have concealed the material

facts and have not come to the court with clean hands.
The suit of the plaintiffs is based on

forged and

fabricated Will dated 6-5-2002 later on registered on

27-12-2011
Singh.

alleged

to be

executed by

The alleged Will is prepared after the death of

deceased Jag Singh to grab his property.

of

the

deceased Jag

alleged

Will

Shamsher Singh brother

i.e.

Harbans

The witnesses

Singh

father

and

and Avtar Singh brother-in-law

of Supinder Kaur who are close relatives of the

-3Supinder Kaur. Moreover Will does not speak a single

word regarding Defendant wife of Jag Singh .
the Will was got registered out of
back of the defendant.

Moreover

Punjab State at the

The alleged Will shown to be

executed at Dabwali in Haryana where deceased Jag Singh

has

no

concern.

alias

Actually

Jaswinder

married

to

Kaur

Swaran

(Haryana).

She

Darshan Singh.

alias

Singh

is

plaintiff

not

Babby

Baba
legally

Later on

Supinder
was

of

previously

village

wedded

plaintiffs

Moujgarh

wife

with

Darshan

deceased

Jag

Singh never

Singh.

resided

of

the

started living

alongwith Darshan Singh and they are not in a

terms

Kaur

speaking

Plaintiffs

with the

alongwith

deceased Jag

Singh at village Lohara. Plaintiffs are residing in the

house

of

Kulwinder

Kaur

and

Avtar

Singh

at

Mandi

Dabwali (Haryana) who is sister of the plaintiff and

brother-in-law.

Moreover

previously

on

Supinder Kaur , her brother Kulwant Singh

friend

Raja

alias

Sonu

and

Darshan

attempt to kill the Rupinder Kaur

30-3-2002
and

Singh

their

made

an

daughter-in-law of

Jag Singh legally wedded wife of Darshan Singh . An FIR

no. 45 dated 31-3-2002 U/Sec. 307/323 and 34 IPC was
registered against plaintiff and other accused in
Lambi. Photo copy of the FIR is attached.
plaintiffs

alongwith

Kulwinder
Shamsher

Kaur
Singh

constructed

and

defendant
her

tried

house

Killianwali of the

and

brother

no.5,

P.S.

That the
her

Kulwant

sister

Singh

to

take

possession

plot

situated

of
in

and
the
Mandi

deceased Jag Singh. Due to this Jag

Singh deceased has filed a civil

10-6-2010 in the court

of

suit no. 44

dated

Additional Civil Judge

(S.D.) Malout in which the Civil Judge (J.D.) Malout

vide

order

dated

8-10-10

restrained

the

alongwith her brother and defendant no.5

plaintiffs
and other

defendants from interfering into the possession of the

house and plot. That suit was dismissed on 21-12-11
after the death of Jag Singh. A copy of the order is
attached. Many times plaintiff and her husband

-4alongwith

brothers

deceased jag Singh.

and

sister

tried

to

kill

the

Jag Singh has moved an application

to S.H.O., P.S. Lambi regarding the incident dated 184-2010 in which he has specifically mentioned that they
will

kill me

and prepared

will. Previously on
moved

an

24-6-10

applications

my forged

and fabricated

plaintiff no. 1 has also

against

Jag

Singh

to

Police

Chowki at Killianwali, in that application plaintiff

no.1 admitted that

she has not good relations with

deceased Jag Singh from the very begining.

So they are

not even in speaking terms, because they are freely

moving applications against each other. Photo copies of
applications are attached.
8.

That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be

dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary

parties.
On merits:
1.

That

para

no.1

of

the

plaint

is

correct

regarding the minority of plaintiff no.2, rest of the

para is incorrect and denied. Plaintiff has
to file the present suit for herself

nor right

and there is no

question of filing the suit on behalf of minor. Because

they have no right against the suit amount. Actually
plaintiff

has

no

concern

with

the

succession

of

deceased Jag Singh. She is not legally wedded wife of

Darshan Singh .
2.

That para no. 2 of the plaint is admitted

regarding the death of Jag Singh, rest of the para is

incorrect

and

denied.

Previously

Supinder

Kaur

was

married to Swaran Singh alias Baba r/o village Maujgarh

(Haryana).

It

is

also

correct

that

deceased

was

resident of Village Lohara. However it is correct that

defendant no. 1 is widow, and defendant no. 2 to 5 are
daughters and son of deceased Jag Singh.

-53.

That para no.3 of the plaint is absolutely

incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that Jag Singh

deceased has executed a Will dated 6-5-2002 during

his

life time in favour of the plaintiffs. Deceased Jag

Singh never executed any alleged Will in favour of the
plaintiffs.

It

is

incorrect

the

alleged

will

was

executed by Jag Singh in favour of the plaintiffs in

his sound and deposing mind during his life in equal
shares.

There is no question of any registration of

the Will by Sub Registrar Dabwali. Plaintiffs tried to

prepare an evidence by registering it
The alleged
upon

the

out of State.

Will is forged, fabricated and not binding

rights

of

the

replying

defendant.

It

was

prepared after the death of the deceased Jag Singh in

connivance with father, brother and brother in-law of
the

plaintiff

and

Jagdev

Singh

Brar,

Advocate.

The

witnesses are closely related to Supinder Kaur and the

alleged Will did not speak even a single word regarding
replying defendant. Jagdev Singh Brar Advocate was the
counsel

of

plaintiff

Supinder

Kaur

in

her

previous

litigation since 1993 with her husband Swaran Singh in

different courts. Supinder Kaur is not a legally wedded
wife of Darshan Singh. Actually plaintiffs alongwith
Darshan Singh are members of a bad society.
not

in a speaking

his wife and

attachment

They are

terms with deceased Jag Singh and

daughters.

That Jag Singh

has no

with plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have no concern

with the movable and immovable property of the deceased

Jag Singh.
4.

That para no. 4 of the plaint is incorrect and

denied as alleged. It is incorrect that deceased Jag

Singh only has accounts in the Sutlej Gramin Bank Mandi
Killianwali and he has deposited various amount in his
own

name. Actually

the amount

replying

defendant

jointly

savings.

Replying

defendant

was deposited

with
has

Jag

Singh

sold

her

by the

of

their

parental

property in the year of 1995 onward which was on the

-6name of Fouja Singh who was real uncle (Chacha) of the

replying

defendant

who

was

issueless

and

purchased

property at Village Lohara and Village Lohgarh. So out

of

the

income

from

that

property

the

amount

was

deposited in bank.
5.

That para no. 5 of the plaint is incorrect and

denied. It is absolutely incorrect that the replying

defendant in connivance with defendants no. 2 to 4 had
withdrawn an amount of Rs. 29,34,928/- on 24-12-2011 as
nominee

of

legal

heirs

of

Jag

Singh.

It

is

also

incorrect that she has executed a receipt of amount

receiving as nominee of deceased Jag Singh. Actually
the

replying

defendant

has

Joint

Account

with

the

deceased Jag Singh in Satluj Gramin Bank and the mode

of

operation

was

either

or

survivor

and

she

has

received the amount as a survivor. She has absolute

right on the amount which she has received from the
bank along with her Son Darshan Singh.
6.

That para no. 6 of the plaint is absolutely

incorect and denied as alleged. It is incorrect that

deceased Jag Singh executed a valid will in favour of
the plaintiffs on dated 6-05-2002. It is incorrect that
the plaintiffs are only legal heirs of deceased Jag
Singh. It is also incorrect that defendants no. 1 to 4
in connivance with each other had not paid the amount
to the plaintiffs. The alleged will is a forged and
fabricated document prepared by plaintiff in Connivance
with her father, brother and brother-in-law along with
her previous counsel. It has no value in the eyes of
law.

It

is

prepared

just

to

grab

the

property

of

deceased Jag Singh. Replying defendant and defendants

no. 2 to 5 are legal and natural heirs of deceased Jag
Singh.
7.

That para no. 7 of the plaint is correct upto the

extent that plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration

-7which is pending in Civil Judge (Jr.D.), Malout and

rest

of

the

contents

of

this

para

are

absolutely

incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that replying

defendants in connivance with defendants no. 2 to 4 had
withdrawn the suit amount as trustee. It is incorrect
that the plaintiff are entitled for the amount. That
the other banks State Bank of Patiala, Punjab & Sind
Bank had illegally against the rules and had not paid
the amount to the replying defendant. They had not paid
the amount against banking rules. That plaintiffs have
no claim regarding the suit amount.
8.

That para no. 8 of the plaint is incorrect and

denied. Plaintiff has no right to make

any alleged

request to the replying defendant and there is no such

occasion for the same.
9.

That para no. 9 of the plaint is

and denied.

incorrect

Plaintiff has no cause of action to file

the present suit because she has no right, title or

interest over the suit amount.
10.

That para no. 10 of the plaint is correct upto

that Satluj Gramin Bank Mandi Killianwali and rest of

the

para is

incorrect and

denied. Plaintiff

is not

residing at Killianwali. Actually plaintiff is residing

with her sister at Mandi Dabwali.
11.

That para no. 11 of the plaint is incorrect

and denied. The suit of the plaintiff is not properly

valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.
12.

That para no. 12 of the plaint is correct

regarding

the

suit

for

declaration

and

permanent

injunction and rest of the para is incomplete regarding

the

litigation.

withdrawn

by

the

Suit

for

permanent

plaintiffs.

So

injunction

order

Rule

was
2

applicable. That the mutation no. 12028 and 2570 are

is

-8pending

in

mutation
Lohgarh
Singh

the

Court

of

S.D.M.,

Malout

and

also

no. 4806 regarding the property of village

( Haryana)

was

regarding the inheritence of Jag

sanctioned by the court of S.D.M.

Dabwali

infavour of plaintiff , but defendants filed an appeal

in the court of Deputy Commissioner Sirsa who vide his
order

dated 29-8-12

Dabwali
and

set-aside the

order of

S.D.M.

and sanctioned the mutation in favour of legal

natural

heirs

of

deceased

Jag

Singh

and

again

plaintiff filed an appeal in the court of Commissioner

Division Hissar who has dismissed it.
It

is,

therefore,

requested

that

the

suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous against law

and facts may kindly be dismissed with costs.
Submitted by:Jangir Kaur wd/o Jag Singh r/o
village

Lohara

Teh.

Malout,

Distt. Sri Muktsar Sahib.

---- defendant no. 1
Through counsel :A.S. Sandhu,
Advocate, Malout.
Verification:
Verified that the contents of para no. 1 to 8 of
pre-objections and para no. 1 to 12 of

reply on merits

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

belief and

prayer is believed to be true. Verified at

Malout on 07-05-2015.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. Divin .)

MALOUT.

Supinder Kaur

Versus

Jangir Kaur etc.

Suit for Recovery

Written Statement on behalf of defendant no. 2 to 4
R/Sir,
It is submitted as under:Pre-Objections:1.

That

the

suit

of

the

plaintiffs

is

not

maintainable in the present form.

2.

That plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus

standie

to

file

the

present

suit.

The

replying

defendants along with defendant no. 1 & 5 are legal and

natural heirs of the deceased Jag Singh. As per law of
inheritance replying defendants and defendant no. 1 & 5
have by birth right in the suit property and plaintiffs
have no concern with the property left by deceased Jag
Singh.
3.

That previously plaintiff had filed the suit for

permanent
Branch

injunction

Manager

titled

etc.

as

regarding

Supinder
the

Kaur

present

V/s.

subject

matter which was withdrawn on 06-12-2014 from the Court

of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Malout. So order 2
rule 2 of C.P.C. is applicable. Plaintiff has no right
to

file

regarding

the
the

present
same

suit

subject

on

same

matter

cause
against

of

action

the

same

parties. So the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.

That

the

plaintiff

has

filed

suit

for

declaration on the basis of forged and fabricated will

prepared in connivance with her brother, father and

-2brother-in-law and her previous counsel Jagdev Singh

Brar, titled as Supinder Kaur V/s. Ranjit Kaur etc.
which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.D.),
Malout. So the succession of the Jag Singh was not
decided. So plaintiffs have no right to file suit for
recovery against the defendants.
5.

That the defendant no. 1 along with deceased Jag

Singh have Joint Accounts and they have deposited their

Savings in the banks and both have equal rights to
withdraw

the

specifically

amount
mentioned

and

mode

in

the

of

operation

accounts

either

was
or

survivor. Moreover in other accounts the defendant no.

1 was a registered nominee of the deceased Jag Singh.
She has full right to withdraw the amount. Plaintiff
has no right to file the present suit regarding the
suit amount.
6.

That

the

suit

of

the

plaintiff

is

collusive

between plaintiff and her husband Darshan Singh just

only to harass the replying defendants and defendant
no.

1.

Because

defendant

no.

and

on

24-12-11,

visited bank along with Darshan Singh where Darshan

Singh along with bank official got thump impression of
defendant no. 1 and signatures of defendant no. 4 on
some papers and got the amount. Replying defendant no.
4 signed the documents at the instance of her brother
Darshan Singh. Suit of the plaintiff is vague against
law and facts.
7.

That the plaintiffs have concealed the material

facts and have not come to the court with clean hands.
The

suit

of

the

plaintiffs

is

based

on

forged

and

fabricated Will dated 6-5-2002 later on registered on

27-12-2011
Singh.

alleged

to

be

executed

by

deceased

Jag

The alleged Will is prepared after the death of

deceased Jag Singh to grab his property.

The witnesses

of

the

alleged

Will

i.e.

Harbans

Singh

father

and

Shamsher Singh brother and Avtar Singh brother-in-law

-3of

Supinder

Kaur

who

are

close

relatives

of

the

Supinder Kaur. Moreover Will does not speak a single

word regarding our mother wife of Jag Singh.

Moreover

the Will was got registered out of Punjab State at the

back of the defendants. The alleged Will shown to be
executed at Dabwali in Haryana where deceased Jag Singh
has no concern. Actually plaintiff Supinder Kaur alias
Jaswinder Kaur alias Babby was previously married to
Swaran Singh Baba of village Moujgarh (Haryana). She is
not

legally

replying

wedded

wife

defendants

plaintiff

with

of

never

Darshan

the

Darshan

attended

Singh.

Singh.

the

Later

marriage

on

The
of

plaintiffs

started living alongwith Darshan Singh and they are not

in

speaking

terms

with

deceased

Jag

Singh

and

replying defendants. Plaintiffs alongwith Darshan Singh

never resided with the deceased Jag Singh at village
Lohara.

Plaintiffs

Kulwinder

Kaur

are

and

residing

Avtar

Singh

in

the

house

at

Mandi

of

Dabwali

(Haryana) who is sister of the plaintiff and brotherin-law. Moreover previously

on 30-3-2002

Kaur , her brother Kulwant Singh

and

Supinder

their friend

Raja alias Sonu and Darshan Singh made an attempt to

kill

the

Rupinder

Kaur

sister-in-law

of

replying

defendants who was legally wedded wife of Darshan Singh

. An FIR no. 45 dated 31-3-2002 U/Sec. 307/323 and 34
IPC was registered against plaintiff and other accused
in
the

P.S. Lambi. Photo copy of the FIR is attached. That

plaintiffs

Kulwinder
Shamsher

Kaur
Singh

constructed

alongwith
and

her

tried

house

Killianwali of the

defendant

and

brother

no.5,

her

Kulwant

Singh

to

take

possession

plot

situated

Judge (S.D.)

and
the
Mandi

deceased Jag Singh. Due to this Jag

dated 10-6-2010 in the court

Civil

of
in

Singh deceased our father has filed a civil

44

sister

Malout in

of

which the

suit no.
Additional

Civil Judge

(J.D.) Malout vide order dated 8-10-10 restrained the

plaintiffs

alongwith

her

brother

and

defendant

no.5

and other defendants from interfering into the

-4possession

of

the

house

and

plot.

That

suit

was

dismissed on 21-12-11 after the death of Jag Singh. A

copy of the order is attached. Many times plaintiff and
her husband alongwith brothers and sister tried to kill
the deceased jag Singh. Our father Jag Singh has moved
an

application

to

S.H.O.,

P.S.

Lambi

regarding

the

incident dated 18-4-2010 in which he has specifically

mentioned that they will kill me and prepared my forged
and fabricated will. Previously on

24-6-10

plaintiff

no. 1 has also moved an applications against Jag Singh

to Police Chowki at Killianwali, in that application
plaintiff

no.1

admitted

that

relations

with

deceased

Jag

begining.
because

she
Singh

has

not

good

from

the

very

So they are not even in speaking terms,

they

are

freely

moving

applications

against

each other. Photo copies of applications are attached.

8.

That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be

dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary

parties.
On merits:
1.

That

para

no.1

of

the

plaint

is

correct

regarding the minority of plaintiff no.2, rest of the

para is incorrect and denied. Plaintiff has
to file the present suit for herself

nor right

and there is no

question of filing the suit on behalf of minor. Because

they have no right against the suit amount. Actually
plaintiff

has

no

concern

with

the

succession

of

deceased Jag Singh. She is not legally wedded wife of

Darshan Singh .
2.

That para no. 2 of the plaint is admitted

regarding the death of Jag Singh, rest of the para is

incorrect

and

denied.

Previously

Supinder

Kaur

was

married to Swaran Singh alias Baba r/o village Maujgarh

(Haryana).

It

is

also

correct

that

deceased

was

resident of Village Lohara. However it is correct that

-5defendant no. 1 is widow, and replying defendants and
defendant no. 5 are daughters and son of deceased Jag
Singh.
3.

That para no.3 of the plaint is absolutely

incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that Jag Singh

deceased has executed a Will dated 6-5-2002 during

his

life time in favour of the plaintiffs. Deceased Jag

Singh never executed any alleged Will in favour of the
plaintiffs.

It

is

incorrect

the

alleged

will

was

executed by Jag Singh in favour of the plaintiffs in

his sound and deposing mind during his life in equal
shares.

There is no question of any registration of

the Will by Sub Registrar Dabwali. Plaintiffs tried to

prepare an evidence by registering it
The alleged
upon

the

out of State.

Will is forged, fabricated and not binding

rights

of

the

replying

defendant.

It

was

prepared after the death of the deceased Jag Singh in

connivance with father, brother and brother in-law of
the

plaintiff

and

Jagdev

Singh

Brar,

Advocate.

The

witnesses are closely related to Supinder Kaur and the

alleged Will did not speak even a single word regarding
defendant no. 5. Jagdev Singh Brar Advocate was the
counsel

of

plaintiff

Supinder

Kaur

in

her

previous

litigation since 1993 with her husband Swaran Singh in

different courts. Supinder Kaur is not a legally wedded
wife of Darshan Singh. Actually plaintiffs alongwith
Darshan Singh are members of a bad society.
not

in a speaking

They are

terms with deceased Jag Singh and

his wife and replying defendants. That Jag Singh

no

attachment

with

plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs

have

has
no

concern with the movable and immovable property of the

deceased Jag Singh.
4.

That para no. 4 of the plaint is incorrect and

denied as alleged. It is incorrect that deceased Jag

Singh only has accounts in the Sutlej Gramin Bank Mandi

Killianwali and he has deposited various amount in his
-6own

name. Actually

defendant

no.

the amount

jointly

was deposited

with

Jag

Singh

by the

of

their

savings. Defendant no. 1 has sold her parental property

in the year of 1995 in Village Balehar, Tehsil Patti
onward which was on the name of Fouja Singh who was
real uncle (Chacha) of the defendant no. 1 who was
issueless and purchased property at Village Lohara and
Village

Lohgarh.

So

out

of

the

income

from

that

property the amount was deposited in bank.

5.

That para no. 5 of the plaint is incorrect and

denied. It is absolutely incorrect that the replying

defendants

in

connivance

with

defendant

no.

had

withdrawn an amount of Rs. 29,34,928/- on 24-12-2011 as

nominee

of

legal

heirs

of

Jag

Singh.

It

is

also

incorrect that defendant no. 1 has executed a receipt

of amount receiving as nominee of deceased Jag Singh.
Actually the defendant no. 1 has Joint Account with the
deceased Jag Singh in Satluj Gramin Bank and the mode
of operation was either or survivor and defendant no. 1
has received the amount as a survivor. Defendant no. 1
has absolute right on the amount which she has received
from the bank along with her Son Darshan Singh.
6.

That para no. 6 of the plaint is absolutely

incorect and denied as alleged. It is incorrect that

deceased Jag Singh executed a valid will in favour of
the plaintiffs on dated 6-05-2002. It is incorrect that
the plaintiffs are only legal heirs of deceased Jag
Singh. It is also incorrect that replying defendants in
connivance with each other had not paid the amount to
the

plaintiffs.

The

alleged

will

is

forged

and

fabricated document prepared by plaintiff in Connivance

with her father, brother and brother-in-law along with
her previous counsel. It has no value in the eyes of

law.

It

is

prepared

just

to

grab

the

property

of

deceased Jag Singh. Replying defendants and defendant

-7no. 1 & 5 are legal and natural heirs of deceased Jag
Singh.
7.

That para no. 7 of the plaint is correct upto the

extent that plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration

which is pending in Civil Judge (Jr.D.), Malout and
rest

of

the

contents

of

this

para

are

absolutely

incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that replying

defendants in connivance with defendants no. 1 & 4 had
withdrawn the suit amount as trustee. It is incorrect
that the plaintiff are entitled for the amount. That
the other banks State Bank of Patiala, Punjab & Sind
Bank had illegally against the rules and had not paid
the amount to the defendant no. 1. They had not paid
the amount against banking rules. That plaintiffs have
no claim regarding the suit amount.
8.

That para no. 8 of the plaint is incorrect and

denied.

Plaintiff has

no right

to make

any alleged

request to the replying defendants and there is no such

occasion for the same.
9.

That para no. 9 of the plaint is

and denied.

incorrect

Plaintiff has no cause of action to file

the present suit because she has no right, title or

interest over the suit amount.
10.

That para no. 10 of the plaint is correct upto

that Satluj Gramin Bank Mandi Killianwali and rest of

the

para is

incorrect and

denied. Plaintiff

is not

residing at Killianwali. Actually plaintiff is residing

with her sister at Mandi Dabwali.

11.

That para no. 11 of the plaint is incorrect

and denied. The suit of the plaintiff is not properly

valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.

-812.

That para no. 12 of the plaint is correct

regarding

the

suit

for

declaration

and

permanent

injunction and rest of the para is incomplete regarding

the

litigation.

withdrawn

by

Suit

the

for

permanent

plaintiffs.

So

injunction

order

Rule

was
2

is

applicable. That the mutation no. 12028 and 2570 are

pending

in

mutation
Lohgarh
Singh

the

Court

of

S.D.M.,

Malout

and

also

no. 4806 regarding the property of village

( Haryana)

was

regarding the inheritence of Jag

sanctioned by the court of S.D.M.

Dabwali

infavour of plaintiff , but defendants filed an appeal

in the court of Deputy Commissioner Sirsa who vide his
order

dated 29-8-12

Dabwali
and

set-aside the

order of

S.D.M.

and sanctioned the mutation in favour of legal

natural

heirs

of

deceased

Jag

Singh

and

again

plaintiff filed an appeal in the court of Commissioner

Division Hissar who has dismissed it.
It

is,

therefore,

requested

that

the

suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous against law

and facts may kindly be dismissed with costs.
Submitted by:1.
Ranjit Kaur
2.
Rajwinder
Kaur 3. Amandeep Kaur Daughters
of Jag Singh r/o village Lohara
Teh. Malout, Distt. Sri Muktsar
Sahib.
---- defendant no. 2 to 4
Through counsel :D.S. Gill
Advocate, Malout.
Verification:
Verified that the contents of para no. 1 to 8 of
pre-objections and para no. 1 to 12 of reply on merits

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

belief and prayer is believed to be true. Verified at
Malout on 07-05-2015.

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Divin .) MALOUT.

Harcharan Singh

V/s.

P.S.P.C.L.

Suit for Declaration & Permanent Injunction

Written Statement
R/Sir,
It is submitted as under:Pre-Objections:1.

That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable

in the present form.

2.

That plaintiff has no cause of action and locus

standie to file the present suit.

3.

That

the

Honble

Court

has

no

jurisdiction

to

entertain the present suit as per provisions of the

Electricity Act. Where statutory rights and remedies
are available jurisdiction of Civil Court is excluded.
4.

That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be

dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary

parties.
5.

That the plaintiff has not come to the Court with

clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from

this

Honble

Court.

Actually

on

11-08-2013

when

enforcement team of the P.S.P.C.L. during inspection

found the plaintiff using electricity by theft directly
from the pole for the construction of his newly house.
The

inspection

presence

of

team

the

prepared

plaintiff

and

theft

case

supplied

in

the

copy

of

inspection report which is signed by the plaintiff and

officials

of

the

P.S.P.C.L.

Then

notice

for

the

recovery of Rs. 2,62,882/- was issued to the plaintiff

which he received on 27-08-2013. Then plaintiff has

moved

an

application

to

the

Dispute

Settlement

Committee. The Committee After hearing the plaintiff

decided the case of the plaintiff on 18-12-2013 and
reduced the theft amount 1,75,257/- as per request of
the

plaintiff.

So

notice

for

the

recovery

of

that

amount was issued to the plaintiff vide No. 8 dated 0301-2014.

So

plaintiff

found

illegally

thefting

the

electricity for the construction of his house. So the

suit

is

liable

to

be

dismissed

only

on

this

score

alone.

That the suit of the plaintiff is not properly

valued for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction

and he has not affixed the advolerum court fee because
he

wants

to

refund

of

Rs.

87,630/-

which

he

has

deposited in compliance of the order dated 10-01-2014

of the A.D.J. Sri Muktsar Sahib.
On merits:
1.

That para no. 1 of the plaint is formal.

2.

That para no. 2 of the plaint is incorrect and

denied for want of knowledge.

3.

That para no. 3 of the plaint is correct upto that

the plaintiff is construct a house in PUDA Colony, Rest

of the contents of this para is absolutely incorrect
and denied for want of knowledge. It is incorrect for
affixation of Marbel Work contract was given on 25-072013.

Plaintiff

has

prepared

forged

and

fabricated

documents for save himself from the theft case.

4.

That para no. 4 of the plaint is incorrect and

denied for want of knowledge. It is incorrect that on

03-08-2013 plaintiff purchased a Cement. Plaintiff has
prepared

forged

and

fabricated

himself from the theft case.

documents

for

save

5.

That

para

no.

of

the

plaint

is

absolutely

incorrect and denied for want of knowledge. Plaintiff

should directed to produce strict proof regarding the
construction work.
6.

That

para

no.

of

the

plaint

is

absolutely

incorrect and denied. However the plaintiff got the new

connection on 15-07-2014.
7.

That

para

incorrect

and

incorrect

that

no.

of

denied

as

defendant

the

plaint

alleged.
got

the

It

is

absolutely

is

absolutely

signatures

of

the

plaintiff on blank papers and thereafter with malafie

intention in order to grab amount illegally from the
plaintiff prepared a false checking report dated 11-082013 and one notice bearing No. 804 dated 20-08-2013 of
Rs. 2,62,882/-. Actually both the above said inspection
report and notice of demand was signed and received by
the

plaintiff.

The

inspection

report

of

theft

was

signed on the spot by the plaintiff in the presence of

the

officials

when

he

found

illegally

thefting

the

electricity directly from the pole by connecting blue

wire. The wire was also impounded by the officials.
However it is correct on 05-09-2013 plaintiff made a
representation to the dispute settlement committee and
dispute

settlement

committee

after

hearing

the

plaintiff and after discussing the various aspects of

the case issued a notice no. 8 dated 03-01-2014 for Rs.
1,75,257/-

as per

reules. It

is incorrect

that the

defendant assured the plaintiff that they will withdraw

the theft amount. Photocopies of the Inspection Report,
Notice

No.

804

dated

20-08-2013,

dispute

settlement

committee order dated 18-12-2013, Memo No. 8 dated 0301-2014 and photocopy of bill are attached with the
reply.
8.

That

para

no.

of

the

plaint

is

absolutely

incorrect that denied. It is incorrect that the amount

assessed

by

the

defendant

is

highly

excessive

and

against the sale regulations of the P.S.P.C.L.

9.

That

para

no.

of

the

plaint

is

absolutely

incorrect and denied. When the raid was conducted on

11-08-2013

plaintiff

found

illegally

thefting

the

electricity. It is incorrect that plaintiff has no need

of electricity connection till 03-08-2013.
10. That para no. 10 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied. It is incorrect that false report was prepared
on 18-12-2013.
11. That para no. 11 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied.

It

is

incorrect

that

no

such

electricity

equipment were found at the time of checking dated 1108-2013. It is incorrect that it is the duty of the
defendant

to

issue

temporary

connection

to

the

plaintiff for starting his connection work on 15-072013.

It

temporary

is

the

duty

connection

as

of

the

per

consumer
his

to

demand

receive

from

the

defendant. It is incorrect that the defendant failed to

collect independent evidence regarding theft and notice
dated 20-08-2013. It is also incorrect that defendant
did not provide any copy of checking report.
12. That para no. 12 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied. It is incorrect that checking was not done by
the Authorised Officer of P.S.P.C.L.
13. That para no. 13 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied. It is also incorrect due to above said theft
case

the

defendant

refused

to

issue

new

electric

connection to the plaintiff. It is incorrect that the

plaintiff will cause irreparable loss.
14. That

para

no.

14

of

the

plaint

is

correct

regarding the filing of the suit and deposit of amount

as per directions of the Honble A.D.J. Sri Muktsar

Sahib. Rest of the para is incorrect and denied. It is

incorrect that the plaintiff is entitled to refund of
the amount as prayed for.
15. That para no. 15 of the plaint is correct up to
that

after

deposit

of

50%

amount

in

dispute

the

connection was provided to the plaintiff. Rest of the

contents are absolutely incorrect and denied. It is
incorrect that the defendant department employees are
threatening the plaintiff to disconnect his electricity
connection. However in case theft the defendants are
authorized under the rules to disconnect the connection
of the plaintiff without any notice. It is incorrect
that the plaintiff will cause great hardship if the
connection is disconnected.
16. That para no. 16 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied. The plaintiff never requested the defendant nor
he has any right to do so.
17. That para no. 17 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file
the present suit. Moreover the notice of amount was
issued

after

the

orders

of

the

Dispute

Settlement

Committee, as per law.

18. That para no. 18 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied.
19. That

para

incorrect

and

no.

19

denied.

of

the

The

plaint

Honble

is

absolutely

Court

has

no

jurisdiction to try and entertain such like cases.

20. That para no. 20 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied. The plaintiff has not affixed proper court fee
for

the purpose

of court

fee and

jurisdiction. The

detail mentioned in the pre-objections above.

21. That para no. 21 of the plaint is correct upto

regarding litigation ADJ Sahib Sri Muktsar Sahib and
para

is

himself

incomplete
before

the

because
dispute

plaintiff

settlement

represented

committee

who

after hearing the plaintiff decided the matter.

It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff
false and frivolous based upon wrong law and facts is
liable to be dismissed.
Submitted By :P.S.P.C.L. through Assistant Executive Engineer, City
Sub Division, Malout, Tehsil Malout.

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Divin .) MALOUT.

Harcharan Singh

V/s.

P.S.P.C.L.

Suit for Declaration & Permanent Injunction

Written Statement
R/Sir,
It is submitted as under:Pre-Objections:1.

That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable

in the present form.

2.

That plaintiff has no cause of action and locus

standie to file the present suit.

3.

That

the

Honble

Court

has

no

jurisdiction

to

entertain the present suit as per provisions of the

Electricity Act. Where statutory rights and remedies
are available jurisdiction of Civil Court is excluded.
4.

That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be

dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary

parties.
5.

That the plaintiff has not come to the Court with

clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from

this

Honble

Court.

Actually

on

11-08-2013

when

enforcement team of the P.S.P.C.L. during inspection

found the plaintiff using electricity by theft directly
from the pole for the construction of his newly house.
The

inspection

presence

of

team

the

prepared

plaintiff

and

theft

case

supplied

in

the

copy

of

inspection report which is signed by the plaintiff and

officials

of

the

P.S.P.C.L.

Then

notice

for

the

recovery of Rs. 2,62,882/- was issued to the plaintiff

-2which he received on 27-08-2013. Then plaintiff has

moved

an

application

to

the

Dispute

Settlement

Committee. The Committee After hearing the plaintiff

decided the case of the plaintiff on 18-12-2013 and
reduced the theft amount 1,75,257/- as per request of
the

plaintiff.

So

notice

for

the

recovery

of

that

amount was issued to the plaintiff vide No. 8 dated 0301-2014.

So

plaintiff

found

illegally

thefting

the

electricity for the construction of his house. So the

suit

is

liable

to

be

dismissed

only

on

this

score

alone.
5.

That the suit of the plaintiff is not properly

valued for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction

and he has not affixed the advolerum court fee because
he

wants

to

refund

of

Rs.

87,630/-

which

he

has

deposited in compliance of the order dated 10-01-2014

of the A.D.J. Sri Muktsar Sahib.
On merits:
1.

That para no. 1 of the plaint is formal.

2.

That para no. 2 of the plaint is incorrect and

denied for want of knowledge.

3.

That para no. 3 of the plaint is correct upto that

the plaintiff is constructing a house in PUDA Colony,

Rest

of

incorrect

the
and

contents
denied

of
for

this
want

para
of

is

absolutely

knowledge.

It

is

incorrect for affixation of Marbel Work contract was

given on 25-07-2013. Plaintiff has prepared forged and
fabricated documents for save himself from the theft
case.
4.

That para no. 4 of the plaint is incorrect and

denied for want of knowledge. It is incorrect that on

03-08-2013 plaintiff purchased a Cement etc. Plaintiff

has prepared forged and fabricated documents for save

himself from the theft case.
-35.

That

para

no.

of

the

plaint

is

absolutely

incorrect and denied for want of knowledge. Plaintiff

should be directed to produce strict proof regarding
the construction work.
6.

That

para

no.

of

the

plaint

is

absolutely

incorrect and denied. However the plaintiff got the new

connection on 15-07-2014.
7.

That

para

incorrect

and

incorrect

that

no.

of

denied

as

the

plaint

defendant

alleged.
got

It

the

is

absolutely

is

absolutely

signatures

of

the

plaintiff on blank papers and thereafter with malafied

intention in order to grab amount illegally from the
plaintiff, prepared a false checking report dated 1108-2013 and one notice bearing No. 804 dated 20-08-2013
of

Rs.

2,62,882/-.

Actually

both

the

above

said

inspection report and notice of demand was signed and

received by the plaintiff. The inspection report of
theft was signed on the spot by the plaintiff in the
presence

of

thefting

the

the

officials

electricity

when

he

directly

found

from

illegally

the

pole

by

connecting blue wire. The wire was also impounded by

the

officials.

plaintiff

made

However
a

it

is

correct

representation

on

to

05-09-2013

the

dispute

settlement committee and dispute settlement committee

after hearing the plaintiff and after discussing the
various aspects of the case issued a notice no. 8 dated
03-01-2014

for Rs.

1,75,257/- as

per reules.

It is

incorrect that the defendant assured the plaintiff that

they will withdraw the theft amount. Photocopies of the
Inspection
dispute

Report,

Notice

No.

settlement committee

804

dated

20-08-2013,

order dated

18-12-2013,

Memo No. 8 dated 03-01-2014 and photocopy of bill are

attached with the reply.

8.

That

para

no.

of

the

plaint

is

absolutely

incorrect that denied. It is incorrect that the amount

-4assessed

by

the

defendant

is

highly

exsessive

and

against the sale regulations of the P.S.P.C.L.

9.

That

para

no.

of

the

plaint

is

absolutely

incorrect and denied. When the raid was conducted on

11-08-2013

plaintiff

found

illegally

thefting

the

electricity. It is incorrect that plaintiff has no need

of electricity connection till 03-08-2013.
10. That para no. 10 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied. It is incorrect that false report was prepared
on 18-12-2013.
11. That para no. 11 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied.

It

is

incorrect

that

no

such

electricity

equipment were found at the time of checking dated 1108-2013. It is incorrect that it is the duty of the
defendant

to

issue

temporary

connection

to

the

plaintiff for starting his connection work on 15-072013.Rather it is the duty of the consumer to receive
temporary

connection

as

per

his

demand

from

the

defendant. It is incorrect that the defendant failed to

collect independent evidence regarding theft and notice
dated 20-08-2013. It is also incorrect that defendant
did not provide any copy of checking report.
12. That para no. 12 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied. It is incorrect that checking was not done by
the Authorised Officer of P.S.P.C.L.
13. That para no. 13 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied. It is also incorrect due to above said theft
case

the

defendant

refused

to

issue

new

electric

connection to the plaintiff. It is incorrect that the

plaintiff will cause irreparable loss.

14. That

para

no.

14

of

the

plaint

is

correct

regarding the filing of the suit and deposit of amount

-5as per directions of the Honble A.D.J. Sri Muktsar
Sahib. Rest of the para is incorrect and denied. It is
incorrect that the plaintiff is entitled to refund of
the amount as prayed for.
15. That para no. 15 of the plaint is correct up to
that

after

deposit

of

50%

amount

in

dispute

the

connection was provided to the plaintiff. Rest of the

contents are absolutely incorrect and denied. It is
incorrect that the defendant department employees are
threatening the plaintiff to disconnect his electricity
connection. However in case of theft the defendants are
authorized under the rules to disconnect the connection
of the plaintiff without any notice. It is incorrect
that the plaintiff will cause great hardship if the
connection is disconnected.
16. That para no. 16 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied. The plaintiff never requested the defendant nor
he has any right to do so.
17. That para no. 17 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file
the present suit. Moreover the notice of amount was
issued

after

the

orders

of

the

Dispute

Settlement

Committee, as per law.

18. That para no. 18 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied.
19. That

para

incorrect

and

no.

19

denied.

of

the

The

plaint

Honble

is

absolutely

Court

has

no

jurisdiction to try and entertain such like cases.

20. That para no. 20 of the plaint is incorrect and
denied. The plaintiff has not affixed proper court fee

for

the purpose

of court

fee and

jurisdiction. The

detail mentioned in the pre-objections above.

-621. That para no. 21 of the plaint is correct upto
regarding litigation ADJ Sahib Sri Muktsar Sahib and
para

is

himself

incomplete
before

the

because
dispute

plaintiff

settlement

represented

committee

who

after hearing the plaintiff decided the matter.

It

is,

therefore,

prayed

that

the

suit

of

the

plaintiff false and frivolous based upon wrong law and

facts is liable to be dismissed.
Submitted By :P.S.P.C.L. through Assistant Executive Engineer, City
Sub Division, Malout, Tehsil Malout.
Through counsel :A.S. Sandhu
Advocate, Malout.
Verification:
Verified that the contents of para no. 1 to 5 of
pre-objections and para no. 1 to 21 of on merits of the
written statement are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and

prayer is believed to be

true. Verified at Malout on 07-05-2015.

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Divin .) MALOUT.

Harcharan Singh

V/s.

P.S.P.C.L.

Suit for Declaration & Permanent Injunction

Reply to Application U/O 39 Rule 1,2 R/W Sec. 151 CPC
R/Sir,
It is submitted as under:1.

That para no. 1 of the application is correct to

the extent of filing the present suit in the Honble

Court. Rest of the contents of this para are incorrect
and denied. Suit of the plaintiff is based upon very
weak

law

and

facts

and

there

is

no

chance

of

its

success.
2.

That para no. 2 of the application is incorrect

and denied. The contents of the written statement may

kindly be read as part of this reply.
3.

That para no. 3 of the application is incorrect

and denied. It is absolutely incorrect that under the

garb

of

the

assessment

demand

in

of

question,

the
the

provisional
employees

order

of

of

defendant

department are threatening the plaintiff to deposit the

amount of the alleged provisional order of assessment
with

them

otherwise

electricity

connection

they
from

will
the

disconnect

site.

The

his

detailed

reply has already been given in written statement which

may kindly be read as part of this para.
4.

That

para

incorrect

and

no.

of

denied.

the
It

application
is

incorrect

plaintiff will cause irreparable loss.

is

totally

that

the

-25.

That para no. 5 of the application is incorrect

and denied. Balance of convenience is in favour of the

defendant.
6.

That para no. 6 of the application is incorrect

and denied. Suit of the plaintiff is not prima facie.

It is, therefore, prayed that the application of
the applicant is false and frivolous based upon wrong
law and facts is liable to be dismissed.
Submitted By :P.S.P.C.L. through Assistant Executive Engineer, City
Sub Division, Malout, Tehsil Malout.
Through counsel :A.S. Sandhu
Advocate, Malout.
Verification:
Verified that the contents of para no. 1 to 6 of
reply to application are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief and

prayer is believed to

be true. Verified at Malout on 07-05-2015.