Interpleader suit format
In the court of Civil Judge at Delhi
Suit no. …………../19 …………
1. Rajan Sharma
New Delhi, Janakpuri …………………….. Plaintiff
2. Labh Singh
New Delhi, Saket …………………. Respondent
3. Labh Singh
New Delhi, ……………………..Respondent
Plaint under Order 35 Rule 1
The plaintiff respectfully states as follows;
(Matter of Rent Restriction)
1. Petitioner is the tenant of the shop
2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the owner of the shop
(Facts constituting a cause of action)
3. Respondent 1 and 2 have submitted that the interpleader suit filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable.
4. Filed a petition for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity.
5. Petitioner agreed to deposit the rent to the court.
6. The respondent no 1 and 2 have accepted this demand of petitioner of giving rent to the
court.
According to Order 35, rule 5
7. The tenant has the right to file a suit against all the owners of the shop.
8. The respondent’s suit is maintainable and has action.
9. Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable.
10. The suit is against the owner of the shop.
11. The tenant cannot file a suit against the landlord.
Jurisdiction
Tenant is not applicable to the suit.
The tenant cannot file a suit against landlord according to rule 35
The relief claimed: the plaintiff prays that
No relief claimed because this case gets dismissed because the tenant cannot file a suit against the
landlord.
Place: ……………………….. Signature of the plaintiff
Plaintiff Advocate for
Verification
I,………….., verify that content from 1 to the last para is valid and correct according to my
knowledge and belief and is concealed there.
Signature
Plaintiff
Specimen plaint in an interpleader suit
In the High Court of Justice at Mumbai
O.O.C.J.
Suit No.44 of 2023
Bank of India, Mumbai,
having its registered office at Bank of
India Bldg., Fort, Mumbai - 400001
……Plaintiff
Versus
C, aged...., residing at ...
D, aged...., residing at ...
…….Defendant
Bank of India, Mumbai, the above-named plaintiff, states as
follows:
Before the date of the claims here in after mentioned, G deposited
with the plaintiff, Government securities of the face value of Rs.
60,000 for safe custody.
1.The defendant C claims the same under an alleged deed of
assignment executed by G.
2.The defendant D also claims the same under an alleged deed
of assignment executed by G.
3.The plaintiff is unaware of the defendants' respective rights.
4.The plaintiff has no claim upon the said securities other than
for charges and is ready and willing to deliver them to such
persons as the court shall direct.
5.The cause of the action arose on the 10th February, 2022,
within the jurisdiction of this court, when the said defendants
claimed the same securities adversely to one another.
6.The value of the subject-matter of the suit for the purpose of
jurisdiction and the court-fees in Rs. 60,000.
7.The plaintiff claims:
1.An injunction is requested to prevent the defendants
from pursuing legal action against the plaintiff over the
securities.
2.They must interplead jointly about their rights to the
securities.
3.That some person be authorised to receive the said
securities pending such litigation;
4.That upon delivering the same to such persons, the
plaintiff be discharges from all liability to either of the
defendants in relation thereto; and
5.That the plaintiff may be awarded all costs of, and
incidental to this suit.
(Sd.) Bank of India
Mumbai
By its Secretary, A.B.
Verification
I, A, B, the Secretary of Bank of India, Mumbai, declare on solemn
affirmation that the contents of paras 1 to 8 to the above plaint are
true to may information and belief. Verified at Mumbai this ….
Day of April, 2023.
(Sd.) Bank of India
Mumbai
By its Secretary, A.B.
