BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE CASS II, DISTRICT COURT AT
JABALPUR (M.P.)
Case No.RCSA/41/21
PLAINTIFF - Abhishek Pujari
VERSUS
DEFENDANTS - Ashish Pujari & Ots.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
NO.
Preliminary Objections:
The Defendant humbly submits that:
1. That, the plaintiff has filed this suit for inter alia declaring nullity the
family settlement agreement dated 06.110.2016.
2. That, pertinently, the aforesaid family settlement agreement also
incorporates the manager-ship of Bade Hanuman Ji temple situated at
Fuhara, Jabalpur (MP), which is a subject of great devotion for
thousands of people, if not lacs, thus also being a source of pecuniary
showings of the devotees.
3. Pertinently, the answering defendant and the plaintiff are step brothers
whose father was the pontiff of the said temple, thus the same was the
source of livelihood for decades for the parties in controversy as also
it was under their manager-ship from generations.
4. That, this being said, the defendant and his mother only saw the said
temple earnings as the source of their livelihood, which stands
snatched after the death of the father of the answering defendant.
5. That, apposite is to highlight that the family in controversy has only
been the manager of the said property with no ownership rights,
although after the death of the father of respondent the plaintiff and
his real brother are practicing ownership rights on the temple whose
manager-ship is a part of the family settlement agreement.
6. That, the real brothers have ousted the defendant and want to profit
from the earnings of the temple which come out in the form of
donation.
7. Although, in the prayer there is no direct request for claiming the
ownership or manager-ship of the temple, yet if the agreement is set
aside the rights contained therein would also get affected, thus in the
garb of division of house, the manager-ship/ ownership of the temple
is being played with, and presently the earnings coming in form of
donations from devotees is being exploited for personal use of the
Plaintiff and his Defendant real brother who are in fact in collusion.
8. That, it needs no reiteration that the temple being a public temple, its
earnings should go back to the society and public from where it is
coming, something which the Supreme Court has iterated time and
again and recently in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI
and Ots.
9. That, despite being public funds, the same are being used b y the
Plaintiff Abhishek Pujari and Ashsih Pujari for satisfying their
personal meets, neglecting the answering defendant, although from
time immerorial he and his mother had always relied on temple
earnings as a source of their bread and biscuit.
Suit non maintainable thus to be rejected for want of Court Fees:
10.That, it is pertinent to mention that the suit is undervalued as such the
valued of impugned property has been intentionally undervalued and
the same is multifold of the one against what has been described in the
plaint.
11.That, it is pertinent to mention that the value of property as per the
Sampada software of of the government goes to crores and
accordingly the court fees needs to be paid, as per the provisions
elucidated in The Court Fees Act 1870.
Suit is non maintainable for want of Causation:
12.That, it is pertinent to mention that no proper cause of action has been
elucidated in the plaint.
13. That, is pertinent to mention that no question on law or on fact are
arising in the said case, and the same has only been filed to wreck
vengeance on the answering Defendant, and snatch their share of the
property.
Reply on merits:
14. That, save for the fact that the parties are related to each other as
successors and relatives of Lt. Mr. Ram Chandra Pujari, no
contentions as described in para 1 thru 10 of the plaint deserve to be
denied and are thus repudiated in toto, for being cocktailed, concoted,
fabricated, untruthful and exaggerated.
15. That, the above named Defendant reserves his right to file additional
submissions if the same are warranted in the future.
Place: Jabalpur Pranay Pathak
Date: 05-011-2023 (Counsel for the defendant)
Defendant No.1
VERIFICATION
I, the above named defendant Aditya Pujari, Son of Lt. Mr. Ramchandra
rao Pujair, aged Adult, R/o Paras Colony, Cherrytal, Jabalpur (M.P), do
hereby verify that the contents of para 1 to 44 of Written Statement on
merits are true to the best of my knowledge.
Defendant No.1
BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE CASS II, DISTRICT COURT AT
JABALPUR (M.P.)
Case No.RCSA/41/21
PLAINTIFF - Abhishek Pujari
VERSUS
DEFENDANTS - Ashish Pujari & Ots.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr. Aditya Pujari, Son of Lt. Mr. Ramchandra rao Pujair, aged Adult,
R/o Paras Colony, Cherrytal, Jabalpur (M.P), do hereby make oath and
state as under :-
1. That, I am fully conversant with the facts of the same. The said suit along
with accompanying interim applications has been drafted under my
instructions. The contents of Suit & accompanying interim applications
are true to my knowledge as based on my personal information and
information's received from records of the case and believed to be true.
2. That, I am producing the documents along with this Civil Suit for perusal
of Hon’ble Court. I fully rely on the same. Copy of such documents is
duly attested by me as true / certified or correct copy.
` DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of
paras 1 & 2 of the above affidavit are true to my personal knowledge and
belief.
Jabalpur DEPONENT
BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE CASS II, DISTRICT COURT AT
JABALPUR (M.P.)
Case No.RCSA/41/21
PLAINTIFF - Abhishek Pujari
VERSUS
DEFENDANTS - Ashish Pujari & Ots.
APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY
1. That the above named Defendant has filed his Written Statements in the
said matter, although the same have been filed after quite a delay.
2. That, it is pertinent to mention that earlier counsel of the Defendant did
not cooperate in filing the Written Statements, thus despite being directed
the same could not be filed.
3. That, the Defendant being of little to means and equally low on
educational acumen was not able to hold himself with the procedural
aspects of the proceedings taking place before this Hon’ble Court.
4. That, due to this lack of knowledge and non coordination by the erstwhile
counsel, the WS could not be filed on time, but the Defendant now has
engaged a different counsel.
5. That, the dictum is clear in this regard that due to the negligence of the
counsel the party should not be at the suffering end.
6. That, with folded hands and by extending unreserved apologies, the
Defendant is praying that his WS may kindly be taken and the delay in
filing the same may please be condoned.
PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone
the delay in filing the instant WS, in the interest of justice.
Place: Jabalpur Pranay Pathak
Date: 05-11-2023 (Counsel for the defendant)
