IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH MARKAN, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT

CONTROLLER, (SOUTH EAST), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

SUIT NO : 371/14

IN RE:

SANDEEP SINGH ….PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

S.D.M.C. & ORS. …. DEFENDANT

DOH : 23.07.2015

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE CPC READWITH SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF
OF RESPONDENT NO.2 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AS

1. That the above noted suit is pending in the Hon’ble Court and listed for ex-parte evidence
on 23.07.2015.

1. That the suit is so far as pertains to the answering defendant and the same is barred
by the provisions of section 140 of the Delhi Police Act (hereinafter called the Act)
for want of service of statutory notice and as such the same is not maintainable qua
and is liable to be dismissed.

2. That the present suit is barred by limitation under section 140 (1) of Delhi Police Act read
with allied provision of law. Admittedly the cause of action for filing the suit arose on
13/10/2013 as stated in para 13 of the plaint. The suit ought to be filed on or before
13/1/2014 and the suit filed on any date after said 13/01/2014 is barred in view of the bar
contained under section 140 of the Delhi Police Acct, 1978. As such the same is not
maintainable qua and is liable to be dismissed.

3. That an affidavit in support of the fact stated above is being filed by the applicant.

PRAYER

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the ex-parte order passed the

It is accordingly prayed.
Filed by :
Delhi
APPLICANT/DEFENDANT
Deputy Commissioner of Police
Dated.

Through

RICHA JINDAL
ADVOCATE
 IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH MARKAN, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER, (SOUTH EAST), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

SUIT NO : 371/14

IN RE:

SANDEEP SINGH ….PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

S.D.M.C. & ORS. …. DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mandeep Singh Randhawa, Deputy Commissioner of Police, South East District, New
Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-

1. That the deponent is the Principal Officer of the Answering defendant i.e defendant
no.2 and thus he is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and he
is competent enough to swear this affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying application have been drafted by my counsel
under my instructions and the same are true and correct.

3. That the contents of the accompanying reply be read as part and parcel to this affidavit,
which are not repeated here in for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on this …… Day of July, 2015 that the contents of para 1 to 3 of the
above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH MARKAN, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER, (SOUTH EAST), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

SUIT NO : 371/14

IN RE:

SANDEEP SINGH ….PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

S.D.M.C. & ORS. …. DEFENDANT

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NO.2, COMMISSIONER OF

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS :

1. That the suit is so far as pertains to the answering defendant and the same is barred
by the provisions of section 140 of the Delhi Police Act (hereinafter called the Act)
for want of service of statutory notice and as such the same is not maintainable qua
and is liable to be dismissed.

2. That the present suit is barred by limitation under section 140 (1) of Delhi Police Act
read with allied provision of law. Admittedly the cause of action for filing the suit
arose on 13/10/2013 as stated in para 13 of the plaint. The suit ought to be filed on
or before 13/1/2014 and the suit filed on any date after said 13/01/2014 is barred in
view of the bar contained under section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. As such
the same is not maintainable qua and is liable to be dismissed.

3. That the suit is so far as pertains to the answering defendant and the same is barred
by the provisions of order 1 Rule 10 of CPC Act, The suit is bad for mis-joinder of
necessary parties. As the answering defendant is neither a necessary party nor
Proforma party, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. That the plaintiff is not in possession of the park or has nothing to do with the
allotment of said park for any function, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. That the suit is so far as pertains to the answering defendant and the same is barred
by the provisions of section 80 of the CPC (hereinafter called the Act) for want of
service of statutory notice and as such the same is not maintainable qua and is
liable to be dismissed.

6. That the suit is devoid of any cause of action against the answering defendant and
as such also the suit is liable to be dismissed qua the answering defendant.
 7. That the plaintiff has failed to specify or show in the suit the interest and liability of
the answering defendant in the subject matter of the suit as required under Order VII
Rule 5 of CPC

8. That the conduct of the petitioner is as such, which disentitles him to any relied from
the Hon’ble Court.

9. That there is no locus standi to file the suit against the answering defendant and as
such the suit if liable to be dismissed qua the answering defendant.

10. That the suit is defective and deficient and other relevant documents have been
supplied to the answering defendant and it reserves its right to file a detailed reply
on receipt thereof.

11. That the suit is filed and framed is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the same
being an abuse process of law and is not maintainable against the answering
defendant. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff with the sole object to linger on the
matter and as such is liable to be dismissed.

12. That the plaintiff is trying to take benefits of its own wrong by filing the instant
application as it is against the principal of natural justice and as such is liable to be
dismissed.

13. That the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, have suppressed
material facts from the court and as such also they are not entitled to any relief
whatsoever in view of section 41(a) and (i) of the specific relief Act.

ON MERITS :

1. That the contents of para 1 of the plaint is wrong and denied for want of knowledge and
the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same.

2. That the contents of para 2 of the plaint is also wrong and denied for want of knowledge
and the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same.

3. That the contents of para 3 of the plaint are not related with answering defendant.

4. That the contents of para 4 of the plaint need no reply.

5-15 That the contents of para 5 to 15 of the plaint need no reply as they are not related with
the answering defendant.

16. That the contents of para 16 of the plaint is wrong and denied. It is denied that the
answering defendant failed to provide security to the plaintiff. It is stated that when the
plaintiff had not made any request for providing any security for his function then how
 come the answering defendant on his own provide him the security. Without prejudice to
the above, it is stated that the plaintiff had not filed any document to prove his averment
that he sent any request for providing the security for his function.

17-19 That the contents of para 17 to 19 of the plaint is wrong and denied.

20-21 That the contents of para 20-21 of the plaint need no reply as they are not related with
answering defendant.

22. That the contents of para 22 of the plaint are wrong and denied.

23. That the contents of para 23 of the plaint is wrong and denied. No cause of action has
been arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the answering defendant and even there
is no question of any apprehension as alleged by the plaintiff.

24. That the contents of para 24 of the plaint need no reply.

25. That the contents of para 25 of the plaint needs no reply

Last para is prayer clause of the amended plaint, which is also wrong and
denied, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of Declaration/ injunction/ Damages as
prayed in the amended plaint.
It is therefore prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with
costs.

DEFENDANT
Deputy Commissioner of Police

Through

Delhi RICHA JINDAL

VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this …… Day of July, 2015 that the contents of para 1 to 22 of
Reply on Merits of the above written statement are true on the basis of the record
maintained by the department and that of para nos. 23 and 25 are based on legal
information and those of para 1 to 12 of the Preliminary Objections are based on the
information received and believed to be true to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Last para is a prayer to this Hon’ble
Court.

DEFENDANT
Deputy Commissioner of Police
 IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH MARKAN, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER, (SOUTH EAST), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

SUIT NO : 371/14

IN RE:

SANDEEP SINGH ….PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

S.D.M.C. & ORS. …. DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mandeep Singh Randhawa, Deputy Commissioner of Police, South East

1. That the deponent is the Principal Officer of the answering defendant i.e defendant no.2
and thus he is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and he is
competent enough to swear this affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying written statement have been drafted by my
counsel under my instructions and the same are true and correct.

3. That the contents of the accompanying reply be read as part and parcel to this affidavit,
which are not repeated here in for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on this …… Day of August, 2015 that the contents of para 1 to 3 of the
above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH MARKAN, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER, (SOUTH EAST), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

SUIT NO : 371/14

IN RE:

SANDEEP SINGH ….PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

S.D.M.C. & ORS. …. DEFENDANT

DOH : 23.07.2015

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 7 CPC READWITH SECTION 151 CPC FOR
SETTING ASIDE EX-PARTE ORDER AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.2 COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AS

4. That the above noted suit is pending in the Hon’ble Court and listed for ex-parte evidence
on 23.07.2015.

5. That the above note suit was already been ordered ex-parte by this Hon’ble Court against
the applicant/defendant vide order dated 08.04.2015.

6. That it is respectfully submitted that the Court Notice was served at the office of Joint
Commissioner of Police PHQ on 07/03/2015 and was sent through proper channel and
the applicant/defendant received court notice on 1 7/03/2015 to appear before the court
on 09/03/2015 and thereafter vide letter dated 25/03/2015 send request to the
Department of law, Justice & Legislative affairs, Govt of NCT to issue BTF in favour of
advocate to contest the matter on behalf of defendant Commissioner of Police before this
Hon’ble Court.

7. That it is respectfully submitted that after completing all the formalities finally the applicant
received copy of BTF along with file only on 21/06/2015.

8. That it is respectfully submitted that the immediately after receiving the BTF, the
concerned officer contacted the defending counsel and with their help they find out the
status of the case as well as the next date of hearing.

9. That when the present counsel inquired regarding the present status of the case from the
counsel of the petitioner then only she came to know that this Hon’ble Court had already
proceeded the defendant no.2 exparte vide order dated 08.04.2015.
10. That the non appearance of the applicant counsel was neither an intentional act nor a
deliberate act and was due to a bonafide mistake on her part.

11. That non appearance of applicant has not in any manner prejudiced the complainant. The
present application is filed by way of abundant precaution in order to ensure that no
prejudice is caused to the interest of the Respondent no.3.

12. That the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in this Hon’ble
Court when the suit was called on for hearing.

13. That an affidavit in support of the fact stated above is being filed by the applicant.

PRAYER

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the ex-parte order passed the

It is accordingly prayed.
Filed by :

Delhi
APPLICANT/DEFENDANT
Deputy Commissioner of Police
Dated.

Through

RICHA JINDAL
ADVOCATE
 IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH MARKAN, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER, (SOUTH EAST), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

SUIT NO : 371/14

IN RE:

SANDEEP SINGH ….PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

S.D.M.C. & ORS. …. DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mandeep Singh Randhawa, Deputy Commissioner of Police, South East District, New
Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-

1. That the deponent is the Principal Officer of the Answering defendant i.e defendant
no.2 and thus he is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and he
is competent enough to swear this affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying application have been drafted by my counsel
under my instructions and the same are true and correct.

3. That the contents of the accompanying reply be read as part and parcel to this affidavit,
which are not repeated here in for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on this …… Day of July, 2015 that the contents of para 1 to 3 of the
above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT