Written Statement in O.S.168-2013-M.sudakara Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

O.S.168/2013
Between:
Swarna James
..Plaintif
Vs
Mitnasala Sudhakara Rao

..Defendant
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED U/Or 8 R1 OF C.P.C.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
The
defendant
submits
the
following
written
statement:1.
The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts
and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

2.
Except the allegations those are specifically admitted
hereunder, the rest of the other allegations have to be

denied by this defendant and the plaintif is put to strict
proof of the same.
3.
The allegations of the plaint that the defendant
borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs

fifty thousand Only) from the plaintif on 23-02-2011 for his
family necessities at Ongole and executed a demand
promissory note in favour of plaintif on 23-02-2011 at
Ongole in the presence of attesters
for Rs.4,50,000/-
agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., with

yearly compoundable payable to plaintif or his order on
demand
and
subsequently
plaintif
made
demands
personally through mediators to pay the above pro-note debt

with interest, defendant promising to pay the amount with
interest as per pro-note and postponing the same from time
to time and on 15-03-2013 the plaintif got issued lawyer
notice to defendant demanding for payment of the pro-note
amount, dt.23-02-2011 and the defendant knowing the
contents of the notice, refused to receive the notice and
returned to plaintifs advocate and as there is no proper
response from defendant, the plaintif has no other go
except to seek relief from the Honble Court by filing the suit,
similar and other allegations are all false and invented for
the purpose of this suit.
4.
It is submitted that the defendant did not borrow any
amount from the plaintif and executed a promissory note in

favour of the plaintif.
The defendant has no necessity to
borrow such huge amount from the plaintif and the plaintif
has no capacity to lend the money. The plaintif used to lend
small amounts to the people with interest @ Rs.10/- or
Rs.15/- per month. The plaintif and the defendant are coemployees in RIMS Hospital, Ongole.
There are disputes
arose between the plaintif and defendant with regard to the

office works in their hospital.
To that efect he defendant
gave complaints against the plaintif to his official authorities

and they warned the plaintif on that the plaintif bore
grudge against the defendant and got filed the suit against
this defendant with false allegations to get wrongful gain and
harass the defendant.
5.
The suit promissory note is rank forged document. The
plaintif fabricated this document with active support of his

henchmen. The alleged promissory note and the signature
on the said document are not belonging to this defendant.
6.
The plaintif did not demand this defendant personally
or through mediators with regard to the alleged promissory

note debt.
The defendant never refused to receive the
notice got issued by the plaintifs advocate. The defendant

has no knowledge about the issuing of legal notice.
The
plaintif got returned the legal notice by managing the postal

authorities.
7.
The defendant need not pay any amount to the plaintif
as alleged in the plaint as he did not borrow any amount

from the plaintif. The plaintif did not come to court with
clean hands.
8.
There is no cause of action to file this suit.
9.
The defendant reserves his right to file additional
written statement in future at any point of time.

Hence this defendant prays that the Honble Court may
be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.
Be pleased to Consider
Advocate for Defendant
DEFENDANT
The facts stated above all are true to the best of my

knowledge, belief and information.
Ongole,
Dt.
DEFENDANT
N.S.K.S
OF
THE
ADDL.
IN THE COURT
SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE
O.S.No.168/2013
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED U/Or

8 R 1 OF C.P.C ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANT
FILED BY:Sri N.S.K.SATYANRAYANA,

Sri V.VENKATA PAVAN
KUMAR,
ADVOCATES,
ONGOLE.
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE
O.S.168/2013
Between:
Swarna James
..Plaintif
Vs
Mitnasala Sudhakara Rao

..Defendant
AFFIDAVIT FILED UNDER SECTION 139 C.P.C

I, Mitnasla Sudhakara Rao S/o.Abraham, aged about
46years, Hindu, R/o.Indira Colony, Opp. F.C.I., Ongole,
Prakasam District., do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely
state as follows:I am the deponent herein and defendant in the main
suit and I am well acquainted with the facts of the case.
I have instructed my counsel and got prepared the
written statement.
After the said written statement is
prepared, I have gone through the contents therein and

found them as true and correct and then I have subscribed
my signatures.
I hereby declared that the contents in paras 1 to 9 of

the above said written statement are true and correct to my
knowledge, information and belief.
DEPONENT
Solemnly affirmed and signed before me the contents of
the affidavit is read over and explained in Telugu to the
deponent and admitted him to be correct on this the
day
of March, 2014.
ADVOCATE,
ONGOLE

Written Statement in O.S.168-2013-M.sudakara Rao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Written Statement in O.S.168-2013-M.sudakara Rao

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Written Statement in O.S.168-2013-M.sudakara Rao

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

Mitnasala Sudhakara Rao

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED U/Or 8 R1 OF C.P.C.

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts

and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

Except the allegations those are specifically admitted

hereunder, the rest of the other allegations have to be

The allegations of the plaint that the defendant

borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs

agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., with

personally through mediators to pay the above pro-note debt

It is submitted that the defendant did not borrow any

amount from the plaintif and executed a promissory note in

The defendant has no necessity to

There are disputes

arose between the plaintif and defendant with regard to the

To that efect he defendant

gave complaints against the plaintif to his official authorities

The suit promissory note is rank forged document. The

plaintif fabricated this document with active support of his

The plaintif did not demand this defendant personally

or through mediators with regard to the alleged promissory

The defendant never refused to receive the

notice got issued by the plaintifs advocate. The defendant

plaintif got returned the legal notice by managing the postal

The defendant need not pay any amount to the plaintif

as alleged in the plaint as he did not borrow any amount

There is no cause of action to file this suit.

The defendant reserves his right to file additional

written statement in future at any point of time.

Advocate for Defendant

The facts stated above all are true to the best of my

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED U/Or

FILED BY:Sri N.S.K.SATYANRAYANA,

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR

Mitnasala Sudhakara Rao

AFFIDAVIT FILED UNDER SECTION 139 C.P.C

After the said written statement is

prepared, I have gone through the contents therein and

I hereby declared that the contents in paras 1 to 9 of

You might also like