8 Usha Bhatnagar
8 Usha Bhatnagar
VERSUS
INDEX
Filed by:-
COUNSEL
(RAJ VARDHAN)
VERSUS
Also at:-
Versus
1. Usha Bhatnagar
10, Chitra Vihar,
New Delhi – 110092 … Defendant No. 1
PLAINTIFF
(THROUGH ITS A.R.)
Through
COUNSEL
(RAJ VARDHAN)
New Delhi
09.12.2015
IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
VERSUS
3. That upon allotment and handover of the aforesaid flat to its buyer i.e.
Defendant No. 1, a flat buyer’s agreement was executed between its
buyer and Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. (“APIL”), pursuant to
which, buyer of the aforesaid flat agreed to avail the maintenance
services i.e. maintenance, upkeep, preservation of the building,
operation of the common services & management of common areas
from APIL or through its nominated maintenance agency and that
maintenance charges shall be regularly paid to APIL or its nominated
maintenance agency. It was further agreed between the parties that
charges towards capital replacement fund, insurance of the building,
water charges etc. shall also be regularly paid to APIL or its nominated
maintenance agency.
4. That the Plaintiff was the authorized and appointed nominee of APIL
and entrusted with the work of providing maintenance and other
facility services at Antriksh Bhawan, New Delhi where the said flat is
situated for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.12.2012 and the Defendants
were jointly and severally liable to make payment to the Plaintiff for the
said services at the applicable rates from time to time depending upon
the cost.
8. That the cause of action arose for filing the present suit in favour of
the Plaintiff company and against the Defendant. It firstly arose on
01.04.2009 when the Plaintiff started providing maintenance & other
facility services to the Defendant at Antriksh Bhawan, New Delhi. The
cause of action thereafter arose on each and every event when the
quarterly maintenance bills were raised by the Plaintiff against the
maintenance services & other charges which became due and payable
by the Defendant. The cause of action further arose every time when
the Defendant failed to make payment of the quarterly maintenance
bills to the Plaintiff. The cause of action subsequently arose on
01.10.2012 when the last quarterly maintenance bill for the period
01.10.2012 to 31.12.2012 was raised by the Plaintiff. The cause of
action further arose on 15.12.2012 when the Defendant failed to make
payment of the said bill to the Plaintiff by the last pay date i.e.
15.12.2012. The cause of action further arose when a legal notice
dated 23.10.2013 was issued and served upon the Defendant by the
Plaintiff company through their counsel. The cause of action is still
continuing and is still subsisting as even after the receipt of legal notice
dated 23.10.2013, the Defendant has not yet made the payment of
accrued and outstanding payment against the rightful claim of the
Plaintiff company.
10.That the valuation of suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction
is Rs. 20,346/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Three Hundred & Forty Six
only) at the time of filing of suit on which ad-valorem court fee have
been affixed on the plaint and regarding deficiency, if any, the Plaintiff
undertakes to pay the same as and when directed by Hon’ble Court.
11.That the present suit is filed within limitation as per provisions of law.
PRAYER
In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice it is
most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased
to: -
A. Pass a decree for recovery of money of Rs. 20,346/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand Three Hundred & Forty Six only) along with pendent – lite
and future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendant;
B. award the cost of present suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant; and
C. Pass such other and further order (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
PLAINTIFF
(THROUGH ITS A.R.)
Through
COUNSEL
(RAJ VARDHAN)
VERIFICATION:
PLAINTIFF
(THROUGH ITS A.R.)
IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Abhishek Singh S/o Mr. Chiranjivi Prasad Singh aged about 36 years
working as Manager (Legal) with Pro Facilities Services Pvt. Ltd. having its
instructions and the facts stated therein are true and correct to the
therefrom.
3. That the contents of the accompanying suit may kindly be read as part
of the present affidavit and the same are not being repeated herein for
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this 09 th day of December, 2015 that the contents of
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
VERSUS
Filed by:-
COUNSEL
(RAJ VARDHAN)
VERSUS
Company.
2. Any other witness with the prior permission of this Hon’ble Court.
Filed by:-
COUNSEL
(RAJ VARDHAN)
VERSUS
I, Mukesh Kumar Singh S/o Sh. H.P. Singh working as Manager – Finance &
Accounts of the Plaintiff company having its registered office at 5, Mathura
Road, Jangpura, New Delhi – 110048 and head office at Plot No. 518, Udyog
Vihar, Phase – III, Gurgaon – 122016, am responsible for the operation,
supervision and management of the computer systems which have been used
to print the statement of account, on or around 23.10.2015 which are being
filed in the present proceeding and which are being exhibited and marked for
identification.
I hereby state and certify that:-
3. That the computer hardware and software used in the above said
computer systems have built in securely mechanism.
4. That these above said computer systems are in working condition, till
today.