IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DISTRICT SHAHADRA

KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI

CIVIL SUIT NO. ________________ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Poonam Rani Kashyap …Plaintiff

VERSUS

EDMC and Ors. ...Defendants

INDEX

S No. Particulars Page No.

1. Written statement of reply on behalf of

defendant no. 4 to the suit for permanent
and mandatory injunctions along with
affidavit
2. Application Under Order 39 Rule 1 And 2
Read With Section 151 CPC For Grant Of
Ad-Interim Ex-parte Injunction along with
affidavit

3. Application Under Section 151 of CPCFor

Exemption From Filing The Original
Documents along with affidavit

4. Copy of written complaint against the

plaintiff’s husband for illegal construction
dated 29/08/2017, filed in MCD.
5. Copy of reply by the MCD dated
15/09/2017, to the written complaint filed
against the plaintiff’s husband for illegal
construction.

PLACE: Through

Date:
 IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DISTRICT SHAHADRA
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI

CIVIL SUIT NO. ________________ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Poonam Rani Kashyap

W/o Sh. Sudesh Chand Kashyap Advocate,
R/o 1/7076 B, IIIrd/ Top Floor (With Roof Rights)
Govind Marg, Shivaji Park, Shahadra,
Delhi-110032 …Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. The EDMC
Through its Commissioner
Patparganj Industrial Area,
Delhi 110092

2. Smt. Renu Bala Mittal

S/o Unknown

3. Naresh Kumar Mittal

S/o Unknown, Both R/o 1/7076 B,
Upper and First Floor, Govind Marg,
Shivaji Park, Shahadra, Delhi-110032

4. Sh. Rajesh Kapoor

S/o Late Sh. Kirpa Ram Kapoor,
R/o 1/7076 B, Upper and First Floor,
Govind Marg, Shivaji Park,
Shahadra, Delhi-110032

5. THE B.S.E.S.Y.P.L
Through its DGM/BM,
33/11 KV, Substation, Near Hind
Pocckeet Book, Dilshad Garden,
G.T. Road, Shahadra, Delhi-110032

6. THE S.H.O.,
P/S Shahadra, Delhi ...Defendants

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REPLY ON BEHALF OF

DEFENDANT NO. 4 TO THE SUIT FOR PARMANANT
AND MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the defendant No. 4 is a peace loving and law abiding

citizen of India and is the resident of above mentioned address

in the NCT of Delhi.

2. It is submitted that the defendant has gone through the

averments made in the plaint and affidavit filed in support of

the plaint. The averments, not specifically admitted, are denied.

The Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The averments

made are not correct and false and the suit is not maintainable

under the eye of law hence be dismissed.

BRIEF OF RELEVANT FACTS:

1. The plaintiff had filed the instant suit by leveling false

allegations which are based on the fictitious and forged

ground so as to save out their faces for the wrong,

committed on their part by violating the law, and

further, the present suit is an act of vendetta against the

defendants who raised their voices against the unlawful

activities of the plaintiff which were affecting the rights

of the answering defendant also.

2. This present suit shows the misuse of the professional

knowledge acquired by the plaintiff, in the society for the

personal vindictive acts of the plaintiff against the

defendants.

3. In brief the facts are that the plaintiff and her husband

wanted to illegally use and utilize the common area of

the residential property for its own good by restraining

 other residents from exercising their property rights, and

when plaintiff and her husband were objected to not to

do the same, a vindictive misuse of professional

knowledge and powers associated with it is being

exhibited by the plaintiff’s husband in the present suit.

4. The plaintiff and her husband wanted to illegally

construct a floor on the roof top of the building, which is

illegal and restrained by law, further the plaintiff and her

husband also wanted to illegally construct an office area

at the common stilt parking area of the residential

building in question, both of these acts were objected by

the other residents (defendants No. 2-4 herein), of the

residential building as doing so was affecting the land

ownership and usability rights of the other residents

(defendants No. 2-4 herein), realizing which the plaintiff

and her husband took a vindictive approach by misusing

the professional powers given plaintiff’s husband by the

noble profession.

5. The suit under reply is liable to be dismissed on the very

ground of being a false, forged and is based on fictitious

statements of the plaintiff which are made on oath before

this honourable court.

PARAWISE REPLY TO THE SUIT :

1. That the contents of para-1 are not for the answering defendant

to reply. It is not to be replied by the answering defendant that

the plaintiff is a peace loving and law abiding citizen of India and
 is the resident of above mentioned address, as they are matter of

facts. It is submitted, in this regard that the conduct shown by

the plaintiff by instituting the present suit describes contrary to

the statement of the para-1, where the plaintiff says that plaintiff

is a peace loving citizen.

2. That the contents of para-2 are wrong and denied. The contents

of para-2, are wrongly mentioned by the Plaintiff. It is a matter of

fact hence does not require any mentions that the Plaintiff is

actual owner and possession of property No. 1/7076 B, III/Top

(with roof & terrace right), Gali No. 6, Govind Marg, Shivaji Park,

Shahdra, Delhi-110032, and the same was constructed in the

year of 2011-2012 and purchased in the year of 2013 and the

said building/ flats had been constructed by the defendant No.

2-3 with the collaborations of the builders, as the defendant No.

2 was the owner of the property No.; 1/7076 B, Govind Marg,

Shivaji Park, Shahadra, Delhi-110032. It is denied that the said

flats have not been constructed as per DMC Act and nor left the

space in front of the buildings flats or as per laws of DMC Act

1957. It is denied that, regarding this the photos of front

towards road/ gali are filed herewith of the above said flats

clearly shows the violation of the DMC Act with the collusion of

the officials of the defendant No. 1 , and regarding this plaintiffs

and her husband give written complaint to the officials of

defendant No. 1 and also to defendant No. 1, and plaintiff and

her husband personally met with the officials of defendant No. 1,

but no any action till date against the unauthorized construction

 in front of all the above said flats which are specifically shown in

red color of plaintiff flat and blue color in defendants No. 2-4

flats, plaintiff shifted in the last week of June 2017 in her flats,

and sanction site plan are in custody of defendant No. 1-3. It is

submitted that all the flats constructed in property bearing no.

1/7076 B, Govind Marg, Shivaji Park, Shahadra, Delhi-110032

are constructed as per the approves site plan which was

approved by the department of MCD committee and the details

can be traced from the department itself, which is defendant No.

1 here. It is further, submitted, here that the plaintiff and her

husband wanted to illegally construct a floor on the roof top of

the building, which is illegal and restrained by law, further the

plaintiff and her husband also wanted to illegally construct an

office area at the common stilt parking area of the residential

building in question, both of these acts were objected by the

other residents (defendants No. 2-4 herein), of the residential

building as doing so was affecting the land ownership and

usability rights of the other residents (defendants No. 2-4

herein), realizing which the plaintiff and her husband took a

vindictive approach by misusing the professional powers given

plaintiff’s husband by the noble profession.

3. That the contents of para-3 of the suit are wrong and denied. It

is denied that in the last week of August 2017, the plaintiff raise

the height of their flat parfait/ boundary wall about 3 ½ feet’s for

security purpose as well as for the safety of human being and

children’s as the previous parfaits of roof is very below as apprx.

Two feet, and also wants to repair the roof of their flat which

were cracks in between the tiles above etc., and no any

permission required for this work as well as construct a small

latrine on roof for essential amenities and for human habitations

for the same, and after one week / in first week of Sept. 2017,

the defendant No. 2-4, intentionally and deliberately calls PCR

100 No. and thereafter filed false complaint in the Dept. of EMCD

etc. in the first week of Sept. 2017 regarding above said legal

work which were on the plaintiff flat roof, and thereafter so many

times officials of the defendant No. 1 and others inspected the

said roof of the plaintiff. It is submitted, in this regard that the

contents of the present para are wrong and denied. The plaintiff

has not come up to the court with clean hands. It is submitted in

this regard that plaintiff was doing illegal construction without

asking prior permission from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi

and information in this regard was given to the Municipal

Corporation of Delhi. The facts of the present para are the after

thoughts of the plaintiff to safeguard his interest by hiding the

actual facts in front of the court. It is further submitted that

the plaintiff was trying to illegally construct a full floor at the top

of the building, which is common to the plaintiff and defendants.

Plaintiff further blocked the ingress and outgress of the

defendants from the terrace and started creating mental

humiliations to the defendants by doing such acts. Copy of

written complaint against the plaintiff’s husband for illegal

construction dated 29/08/2017, filed in MCD is annexed as

ANNEXURE- D-4/1.
4. That the contents of para-4 of the suit are wrong and denied. It

is denied that the plaintiff sent notice in the second week of

December 2017 to the defendant No. 1 through speed post for

repairing an old wall which is just adjacent of the MUMTY i.e.

south side of roof and also for the temporarily TIN SHED put on

them for saving the plant from SUN rays and the same be

allowed by DMC Act or as per law. It is submitted, in this

regard that after the plaintiff and her husband has been stopped

from performing their wrong and illegal deeds of unauthorized

construction, plaintiff’s husband got agitated and became a mad

cow and it is after this they started doing vindictive act against

the defendants.

5. That the contents of the para-5 of the suit are wrong and denied.

It is denied that on 27/08/2018 some persons came at about

3.00 PM on flat of the plaintiff and asked for the open lock of the

roof, and on her asking one said I am an J.E. of EDMC AND

SAYS NAMELY VIVEK MISHRA, and he came here on the

instruction of defendant no.1 and they pressurized to the

plaintiff and wants to forcibly open/ brake the lock of roof

without any notice or order to open/ braking the lock and also

came with heavily commercial Gas Cylinders for this , and on

this plaintiff call her husband who is an advocate and practice at

CH. NO. G-217, KKD COURT, DELHI advised to call PCR 100

No., and the plaintiff also call the PCR but no any help by the

concerned police officials, and later on husband of the plaintiff

came from the court and show all the papers for the same but

they never care for the same, and about within one hours the
officials of defendants demolish the wall about 5x7 feet and after

that return back demolish wall which is just adjacent with

MUMTY of the said flat roofs of plaintiff , and photos taken by

CCTV CAMERA of the officials with police etc. would be filed for

the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court as & when required, and

during this time period so many public at large seen all things

from their roofs and also in Gali, and from this illegal,

unconstitutional and arbitrary act done by the officials of

defendant no.1 without give or served any notice to the plaintiff

or without give opportunity to file reply etc. to the plaintiff , and

said wrong act of the defendant no.1 and his officials defame,

harm the reputation of the plaintiff and her family members in

the society / public at large and many losses i.e. mentally /

physically and financials etc losses occurred due this illegal /

wrong act of the officials of defendant no.1, and the plaintiff

came under sickness and shocked from this illegal act done by

the officials of defendant no.1. It is submitted, in this regard

that after the complaint filed against the plaintiff’s husband for

illegal and unauthorized construction, the officials of the MCD

came to inspect the site (i.e., the residential building in question)

and were restrained/objected to perform their duties, after which

a work stop notice was issued to the plaintiff by the MCD. Copy

of reply by the MCD dated 15/09/2017, to the written complaint

filed against the plaintiff’s husband for illegal construction is

annexed as ANNEXURE- D-4/2.

6. That the contents of the para-6 of the suit are wrong and denied.

It is denied that without prejudice no any notice received by the

plaintiff which was send by the defendant no.1 or the officials of

EDMC/defendant no.1, and NOTICE DATED 24/08/2018

WHICH IS RECEIVED THROUGH POST MAN ON DATED

28/08/2018 for vacation of unauthorized property (not

mentioned notice what is unauthorized construction) within 24

hours , and which was not in the name of the plaintiff & the

same was sent by the officials of the defendant no.1 of their

officials without inspection & without any cause of reasons, and

PHOTOS TAKEN BY CCTV CAMERA of POST MAN and tracking

report with envelop which is send by the defendant no.1 or their

officials would be filed before this Hon’ble Court as and when

required, and the officials of defendant no.1 on dated

27/08/2018 demolish the old wall which is just adjacent with

the MUMTY before receiving the said above notice dated

24/08/2018 in which 24 hours time be given and not mentioned

what is the unauthorized construction on the roof of the plaintiff

and this act is illegal/ wrong and unconstitutional, without the

due process of laws or the same is not as per DMC Act, and as

per DMC Act any notice send and received to the actual owner’s

name as per DMC Act , and also mentioned the details of the

previous notice vide No. 369/B-II/UC/SH-N/2017 dated

20/09/2017, which is arrange from reliable sources on dated

17/12/2019 when met with the EE-(B)-SH-N-ZONE, Delhi and

they asked to remove the unauthorized construction as

previously was partly demolish otherwise our staff again

demolish the unauthorized constructions , and when the plaintiff

and her husband asked for what is unauthorized construction

on the roof of the plaintiff , then they aggressive and threatened

for demolish entire construction of the plaintiff flats roof and not

disclose what is unauthorized constructions, and now the

plaintiff is under impression that the officials of defendant no.1

would be demolish her authorized construction, which is already

authorized and the officials of defendant no.1 intentionally and

deliberately demolish on dated 27/08/2018 as mentioned above,

and the notice dated 20/09/2017 itself contrary to laws as per

DMC Act 1957 & UBBL-2016 and presumed the booking of

TIOLET and wrongly demolish the wall , as if the notice does not

specify the alleged illegal construction, and the Apex courts says

that it cannot be constructed as a notice fulfilling the

requirement of law and it is bound to fail . And also if the order

of demolition is not accompanied by brief statement of reasons

for passing the order, the same does not fulfill the imperative

obligations imposed by Sec. 343 (1) of DMC Act and the Apex

courts (DB) says that is bound to be held invalid. It is

submitted, in this regard that the contents of the present para

does not require defendant No.4 to reply to the contents of

present para. It is further, stated that all these averments does

not concern to defendant No. 4 and hence are not replied, it is

further stated that the contents of the para are denied till the

extent if they affect defendant no. 4.

7. That the contents of the para-7 of the suit are wrong and denied.

It is denied that after plaintiff give written complaint on dated

25/09/2018 & 18/10/2019 to the defendant no.1 for taken

necessary steps & action for the above mentioned illegal act of

the EDMC officials/ defendant no.1 & whose are involved in this

illegal act, and after receiving the said complaint dated

25/09/2018 & 18/10/2019 the defendant no.1 had not taken

any legal action against the officials whose are involved for their

above said wrongfully/illegal act and for pick & choose policy for

the same, and this shows that a network between the EDMC

officials and the builder and they do any type of illegal act which

is contrary to law for the same, and others property which was

booked and these property one is U-23, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-

32 constructed in the year 2018-2019 with erected chhajjas in

gali or road and photographs and supporting documents would

be filed with the case if required & EDMC/ defendant no.1

officials have not taken any steps for the same , and others

officials whose are involved in this illegal act , they do not

perform their duty properly or as per laws or as per DMC Act,

and the defendant no.1 are also liable for damages which were

physically/ mentally bears by the plaintiff on defendants and

their officials part and the same cant recoverable in lieu of

money, and all the initiating/adopted proceeding/adopted by the

defendant no.1 and their officials against the above said flat’s

roof of the plaintiff are contrary to laws of DMC Act and the same

are initially initiation are ab-initio as void and not as per DMC

Act and UBBL-2016, and hence both the defendants are liable
 and responsible for day to day work of defendants officials whose

are working under their control which are wrong or right for the

same, and it shows that the defendant no.1 and their officials are

in collusions with the above said so called complainant on their

false complaint only for harassment and humiliations of the

plaintiff and her family members , and this act of other officials

of EDMC/defendant no.1 are very wrongful and unconstitutional

and the same against the laws, and it is very necessary an

enquiry be conducted by the head of the said defendant no.1 for

their above wrongly/ arbitrarily/unconstitutional act and said

conduct, and regarding this without prejudice and rights and

contentions of the plaintiff , plaintiff already the suit for damages

etc. for harassments as well as harm the reputation of the

plaintiff in the society against the defendant no.1 and this

officials which is pending for adjudication in the court of SCJ,

DISTT.-SHAHDARA, DELHI. It is submitted, in this regard that

the contents of the present para does not require defendant no.4

to reply to the contents of present para. It is further, stated that

all these averments does not concern to defendant No. 4 and

hence are not replied, it is further stated that the contents of the

para are denied till the extent if they affect defendant no. 4.

8. The contents of this para-8 of the suit are wrong and denied. It is

denied that the defendant no.2-3 also create nuisance to park

the vehicles in the stilt parking and also restrain the way to park

in the parking their vehicles and not left any way for ingress and

outgress the vehicles of the plaintiff and her family members,

 and the plaintiff and her husband so many times request from

the defendant no. 2-4 for partition by way of demarcation in

parking as per theirs share, and park their vehicles in their side

and not to restrain the way of plaintiff’s and their family

members vehicles but all times they refused for the same, and on

dated 31/07/2019, 26/08/2019 regarding this plaintiff and her

husband give written complaint to defendant n.6, but no any

action against them for the same and regarding this plaintiff

would be filed photos and CCTV Cameras photos as & when

required by this Hon’ble Court , and thereafter plaintiff served a

notice dated 01/09/2019 by speed post to defendant no.6 for the

above incident but no any action , and hence this suit for the

same. It is submitted that it is defendant no.4 who has always

requested for the demarcation of the parking to the plaintiff. It is

further stated that defendant no.4 only has two two-wheeler

vehicles and the portion of the defendant no.4’s parking was

often used by the plaintiff by requesting the defendant no.4. It is

further submitted that defendant no.4 do not have any objection

in this regard if or if not, the demarcation of parking area is been

done keeping in mind the parity of the floor area under

possession of the plaintiff and the defendants.

9. The contents of the para-9 of the suit are wrong and denied. It is

denied that on dated 04/09/2019, plaintiff online applied for the

new connection vide Application No. 80044081139 and later

on completed all formalities for new electricity connection in the

stilt parking with defendant no.5 as ‘essential amenities’ and

defendant no 2-3 give false complaint to defendant no.5 for not

installed any electricity meter in stilt parking , and here is also

mentioned that no electricity connection in the parking and

stairs and almost darkness in that area, and due to this so many

times plaintiff and her family members and others guests slips

on stairs and sustain injuries and so many times incident occurs

which are harmful to them , and plaintiff so many times

requested for installation of electricity meter in the said parking

and all times the defendants no. 2-4 ignore, and plaintiff wants

to installed the new electricity connection in the stilt parking on

her cost , and defendant no. 5refused and rejected the

application on dated 04/12/2019 vide letter dated DGM/303,

and intimated that NOC are required from others flat owners for

installation new electricity connection in stilt parking and the

same was received on 19-20/12/2019 by the plaintiff through

speed post , and hence the suit for the same. It is submitted

that each and every floor has its separate electricity meter for

the purposes of the uses of electricity and hence there is no need

of separate electricity connection for the flat. It is further

submitted in this regard that proper lighting arrangements is

there at the staircase of every floor and they are

managed/connected to the electricity meters of the respected flat

owners. It is further submitted here that plaintiff is giving a false

statement before the court within the present para and trying to

hide plaintiff’s and her husband’s actual wrong intentions, which

is to utilize the common parking area that is common to all

plaintiffs and defendants, for the purposes of converting the

 same in to an office for plaintiff’s husband and it is because of

this, the plaintiff wants to apply for a separate electricity meter

and a proper demarcation of the parking area, so that they can

utilize it for their ulterior motives of utilizing it as an office space

by doing unauthorized construction over there. It is further

submitted in this regard that under these circumstances where

there is no requirement of any separate electricity meter as there

is proper lighting at every corner of this stilt parking and also in

the staircase area which is common to all. Further stating in this

regard that if at all such an electricity meter is installed in future

then that connection should be applied jointly in the name of all

the residents of the flat (i.e., defendant no. 2-4) and not solely in

the name of plaintiff.

10. The contents of para-10 of the suit are wrong and denied. It is

denied that on dated 17/12/2019, the plaintiff give written

statement to the defendant no.1 and received to the officials of

defendant no.1 i.e. EE-(B)-SH-N-ZONE, Delhi for taken action

against the unauthorized construction in front of the above said

property flats i.e. 1/7076 B, Gali No.6, Govind Marg, Shivaji

Park, Shahdara, Delhi-32 which are not as per DMC Act 1957

and came to know in December 2019 and when met with the EE-

(B)-SH-N-ZONE, Delhi and said officials of defendant no.1 above

and others asked to remove the unauthorized construction as

previously was partly demolish, otherwise our staff again

demolish the unauthorized construction and when plaintiff and

her husband asked for what is unauthorized construction on the

roof of the plaintiff and also asked for the action on the said

above application as well as previously written/orally complaint

or intimation regarding the above said unauthorized

construction and what happened , and also request for allow to

remove the front wall of the plaintiff’s flats then they aggressive

and threatened for demolish entire constructions , it seems that

defendant no.1 officials are ion collusion with the other flats

owner and builders/property dealers and act only pick and

choose policy , and plaintiff and her husband so many times

request from defendant no. 2-4 to remove the front wall from the

flats as per laws, and also request to allow to the plaintiff to

remove her flat front wall and put/construct inside the flats as

per laws as well as for construction a small toilet as essential

amenities in stilt parking , but all times defendant no. 2-4

refused for the same, and plaintiff and her husband request from

defendant no. 2-4 for installation the SOLAR SYSTEM on her flat

roof and all are silent on them for the same. It is submitted in

this regard that the present property has separate electricity

connection for all its residents. It is further submitted that

plaintiff has initially said that he wants an electricity connection

for stilt parking further plaintiff also stated that he wants a Solar

Electricity Connection, where plaintiff already has an active

electricity connection for the residential floor, where plaintiff is

presently residing. Under the light of present facts stated, it is

hard to understand that why plaintiff requires multiple electricity

connection where there is no such necessity. Such desperate act

 of the plaintiff reflects ulterior motives of the plaintiff, which is to

utilize the common area for their personal/professional uses.

11. The contents of para-10 of the suit are wrong and denied. It is

denied that here is also mentioned the brief facts that the

defendant no. 2-3 filed false complaint against the plaintiff and

her husband i.e (a) running a factory in stilt parking to fire dept.

with supporting the sign of locality persons and raid by the fire

dept. and nothing was found and attest copy taken from fire

dept., (b) lodge false complaint on LG portal that completely

construct the Vth floor on the roof and wrongly electricity supply

by the plaintiff from her flat to that unauthorized constructed

V/VI floor and on this on dated 20-21/8/19, the BSESYPL dept.

raid on the roof of the plaintiff flat but nothing found, (c) Lodge

false complaint on LG portal that complaint to DJB that the

supply of water from the plaintiff flats give to the V/VI floor

which is unauthorized constructed and on this raid by the dept.

and nothing found there and attested copy taken by the plaintiff

and so many others complaint given by the defendant no. 2-3

against the plaintiff and her husband to SDM and others

authorities only to harassed, harm the reputation , defamer to

them and all the seen saw by the public enlarge or in Gali etc.,

and regarding this wrong act of the defendant no. 2-3, plaintiff

filed the Cr. Case against them in the competent court of laws

and the same be adjudicated for the same , the plaintiff also

send the notices to the defendant no. 2-3 for theirs above all

wrong act for damages and not on the same would be filed the
 cases in competent court of laws for the end and without

prejudice and right & connection of the plaintiff filed this suit for

the same , and here is also mentioned that in the said Gali No.6,

Govind Marg, Shivaji Park, Shahdara, Delhi-32, unauthorized

gate are put in Gali and defendant no.1 and 6 had not taken any

steps against them till date for the same. It is submitted, in this

regard that the contents of the present para does not require

defendant no.4 to reply to the contents of present para. It is

further, stated that all these averments does not concern to

defendant No. 4 and hence are not replied, it is further stated

that the contents of the para are denied till the extent if they

affect defendant no. 4.

12. The contents of para-12 of the suit are wrong and denied. It is

denied that the cause of action to file the present suit has arisen

in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant firstly in the

first week of July 2019, when the defendant no.2-3 wrongly park

theirs vehicles in the parking and regarding this husband of the

plaintiff on dated 31/07/2019 and 26/08/2019 give written

complaint to the defendant no.6 and also served the notice dated

01/09/2019 by speed post, and further arose when the plaintiff

and her husband orally asked from defendant no.2-4 to remove

their flat front wall and put/construct inside their flats as per

laws as well as allow to the plaintiffs for the same but they

refused for the same. The cause of action further arose on

25/09/2019 & 18/10/2019 when the plaintiff give written

complaint to the defendant no.1 for illegal/wrong action by their

 officials, and also arose on dated 17/12/2019 as well as also

mentioned in para no. 6,8,9& 10 of the sit as no any action

taken by the defendant no.1 of application of plaintiff. The cause

of action is still subsisting as the defendant no.1 officials are

threatening the plaintiff to demolish the entire constructions on

roofs of the plaintiff’s flat along with flat and to create nuisance

on the roof of the plaintiff’s flat as well as her flat for the same,

further arose when defendant no.2-4 not allow to the plaintiff for

removing the front wall of her flats and put/construct inside the

flat or as per laws, and further arose when defendant no.5 reject

the new connection application in the stilt parking of the letter

dated 04/12/22019, and further arose when defendant no.6 has

not taken any action against the defendant no.2-3 for theirs

wrong and illegal act, and hence this suit for the same. It is

submitted the contents of this para are false, fabricated,

imaginatively constructed mental peace of the plaintiff. Plaintiff

never asked for anything from the answering defendant. It is

further stated that the plaintiff is agitated and doing this act just

to harass the defendants who have stopped him from doing his

wrong deeds by way of crating unauthorized construction in the

present property in question. All of these are the after-thoughts

and an act of settling personal vendetta against the defendants.

13. That the contents of para-13 are not for answering defendant to

answer the same. That the suit property is situated at 1/7076 B,

Gali No.6, Govind Marg, Shivaji Park, Shahdara, Delhi-32, area

measuring about 100 sq. yds. Of all flats, and the entire cause of
 action has arisen within the local limits of this Hon’ble Court,

and hence this Hon’ble Court has got the territorial jurisdiction

to try and entertain the present suit.

14. That the contents of this para are wrong and denied. It is denied

that the suit is valued for the purpose of court fee and

jurisdiction for the permanent and mandatory injunctions,

whereupon the requisite court fee has been paid with the plaint

/ suit.

15. Therefore, the Defendant No. 4, humbly submits and requests

the Hon’ble Court that the Suit be dismissed with exemplary

costs in favour of the Defendants as the plaintiff is mischievously

by his nefarious activities

PRAYER

In view of the facts and circumstance of the present case, the

defendant no. 4 humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly:

a) Dismiss the present suit filed by the plaintiff;

b) Grant exemplary costs in favour of the Defendant and against

the Plaintiff;

c) Hold that the baseless suit filed by the Plaintiff amounts to a

frivolous and vexatious one.

d) Pass any other order this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts

and circumstances of the present case.

Through
 Counsel (Defendant)

Verification :

I, Rajesh Kapoor, S/o Late Sh. Kirpa Ram Kapoor, R/o 1/7076 B,

Upper and First Floor, Govind Marg, Shivaji Park, Shahadra, Delhi-

110032; aged about ____ years, do hereby declare that the facts stated

in para 1 to para 15 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,

information and belief and I believe the same to be true and

correct. Hence, verified on this the day of February, 2020 at

Delhi.

PLACE: Delhi

DATED: 24/02/2020 (Defendant)

Through:

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DISTRICT SHAHADRA

KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI

CIVIL SUIT NO. ________________ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Poonam Rani Kashyap …Plaintiff

VERSUS

EDMC and Ors. ...Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Rajesh Kapoor, S/o Late Sh. Kirpa Ram Kapoor, R/o 1/7076 B,
Upper and First Floor, Govind Marg, Shivaji Park, Shahadra, Delhi-
110032 aged___ years, am competent to swear this affidavit :-

1. That I am defendant no. 4 in the present suit filed by the

plaintiff and I am well conversant with the facts of the case
and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Written Statement has been drafted
at my instance, and the contents thereof have been read
over and explained to me in vernacular, which are true and
correct as to my knowledge and the same are to be read and
treated as part of this affidavit as the same are not being
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this day of February 2020 that the

contents of the appeal are true and correct as to my knowledge. No
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DISTRICT SHAHADRA

KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI

CIVIL SUIT NO. ________________ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Poonam Rani Kashyap …Plaintiff

VERSUS

EDMC and Ors. ...Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2

READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC FOR GRANT OF
AD-INTRIM EXPARTE INJUNCTION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Contents of para-1 are matter of fact and need no reply
from the answering defendant.

2. That the contents of para-2 are a subject matter of the court to

decide, otherwise, contents of the mentioned para are wrong and
false.

3. That the case in all senses is a case of personal vendetta of

plaintiff against the defendants more specifically the answering
defendant.

4. That the contents of para-4 are falsely stated as in the instant

suit false allegations are leveled which are based on the fictitious
and forged grounds, so as to save out their faces for the wrong,
committed on Plaintiff’s part by violating the law, and further, the
present suit is an act of vendetta against the defendants who
raised their voices against the unlawful activities of the plaintiff
which were affecting the rights of the answering defendant also.

5. That the contents of the para-5 are false and wrong, there is no
urgent need for anything but to cure the nature and behavior of
the plaintiff and her husband against defendants.
6. That the contents of para-6 are wrongly stated as the cause of
action against the plaintiff started when the plaintiff started
fabricating it’s ulterior motives for illegal construction, and
started encroachments on to the rights of the defendants no. 2-4.
 This is a clear case of vendetta and misuse of the noble
professional powers against the common peoples.

PRAYER
In view of the facts and circumstance of the present application, the

defendant no. 4 humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly:

a) Dismiss the present application filed by the plaintiff;

b) Grant exemplary costs in favour of the Defendant and against

the Plaintiff;

c) Pass any other order this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts

and circumstances of the present Application.

Through

Counsel (Defendant)
Verification :

I, Rajesh Kapoor, S/o Late Sh. Kirpa Ram Kapoor, R/o 1/7076 B,

Upper and First Floor, Govind Marg, Shivaji Park, Shahadra, Delhi-

110032; aged about _____ years, do hereby declare that the facts

stated in para 1 to para 6 are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief and I believe the same to be true

and correct. Hence, verified on this the day of February, 2020 at

Delhi.

PLACE: Delhi

DATED: 24/02/2020 (Defendant)

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DISTRICT SHAHADRA

KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI

CIVIL SUIT NO. ________________ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Poonam Rani Kashyap …Plaintiff

VERSUS

EDMC and Ors. ...Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Rajesh Kapoor, S/o Late Sh. Kirpa Ram Kapoor, R/o 1/7076 B,
Upper and First Floor, Govind Marg, Shivaji Park, Shahadra, Delhi-
110032 aged___ years, am competent to swear this affidavit :-

1. That I am defendant no. 4 in the present suit filed by the

plaintiff and I am well conversant with the facts of the case
and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Written Statement has been drafted
at my instance, and the contents thereof have been read
over and explained to me in vernacular, which are true and
correct as to my knowledge and the same are to be read and
treated as part of this affidavit as the same are not being
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this day of February 2020 that the

contents of the appeal are true and correct as to my knowledge. No
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DISTRICT SHAHADRA

KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI

CIVIL SUIT NO. ________________ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Poonam Rani Kashyap …Plaintiff

VERSUS

EDMC and Ors. ...Defendants

APPLICATION UNDDER SECTION 151 FOR EXEMPTION

FROM FILING THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the defendant no. 4 has filed the accompanying written

reply in the present suit before this Hon’ble Court.

2. That the facts and circumstances have been set out in the
aforesaid written reply by the defendant no. 4. The defendant
no. 4 craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely
upon the contents of the same for the sake of present
application.

3. That the defendant no. 4 has not been able to file the originals
of the document in the written reply. However, the petitioner
has filed a Photostat copy of the same, along with the present
Applications.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and

in the interest of justice, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(i) Exempt the defendant no. 4 from filing the original documents
relied upon the written reply to the suit filed by the petitioner
against the defendant for permanent and mandatory
injunction.
(ii) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

Through

Counsel (Defendant)
Verification :

I, Rajesh Kapoor, S/o Late Sh. Kirpa Ram Kapoor, R/o 1/7076 B,

Upper and First Floor, Govind Marg, Shivaji Park, Shahadra, Delhi-

110032; aged about _____ years, do hereby declare that the facts

stated in para 1 to para 6 are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief and I believe the same to be true

and correct. Hence, verified on this the day of February, 2020 at

Delhi.

PLACE: Delhi

DATED: 24/02/2020 (Defendant)

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DISTRICT SHAHADRA

KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI

CIVIL SUIT NO. ________________ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Poonam Rani Kashyap …Plaintiff

VERSUS

EDMC and Ors. ...Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Rajesh Kapoor, S/o Late Sh. Kirpa Ram Kapoor, R/o 1/7076 B,
Upper and First Floor, Govind Marg, Shivaji Park, Shahadra, Delhi-
110032 aged___ years, am competent to swear this affidavit :-

1. That I am defendant no. 4 in the present suit filed by the

plaintiff and I am well conversant with the facts of the case
and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Written Statement has been drafted
at my instance, and the contents thereof have been read
over and explained to me in vernacular, which are true and
correct as to my knowledge and the same are to be read and
treated as part of this affidavit as the same are not being
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this day of February 2020 that the

contents of the appeal are true and correct as to my knowledge. No
part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT