IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AMB DISTT.

UNA
H.P (COURT NO. II)

Om Parkash Versus Surinder Kumar etc

(Suit for permanent injunction)
(Written Statement by the defendants)

Preliminary objections: -

1. That suit as framed is not maintainable under the

law.

2. That the plaintiffs have not approached this Hon’ble

Court with clean hands and has deliberately and
intentionally concealed and withheld the factum of
the falling of their Abadie of the defendants during
the rainy season of the year 2017 as well as their
foundation bed existing over part of the suit land
denoted by letters ABCD shown red in colour in the
site plan attached with the written statement and as
such are not entitled for the equitable and
discretionary relief of injunction.

3. That the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and

conduct to file the present suit.
4. That plaintiffs have got no cause of action.

5. That plaint does not disclose the cause of action and

is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11 CPC.

6. That defendants upon the execution of the registered

sale deed dated 19-4-2018 from the co-owners in the
ownership column namely Gurbaksh Singh, Waryam
Singh, Mann Singh and Smt Roshani Devi Wd/o of
Khushal Singh had become co-owners in the suit
property with the remaining body of co-owners as
recorded in the ownership column of Jamabandi and
is having better and larger right as well as title than
that of the plaintiffs and it is the settled rule of the
law that no injunction can be granted against the
owner of the property.

7. That present suit is barred under the provisions of

order 9 rule 9 CPC as the earlier suit was filed by the
mother of the plaintiff nor the same on the same
cause of action is filed by the plaintiff.

On Merits: -
1. That para no. 1 of the plaint as stated is wrong and
incorrect. The true fact of the matter is that the
plaintiff along with the defendants and other co-
possessors are coming in the possession of the suit
property/suit land by way of their residential Abadie
over part of the suit land by way of separate
possession having separate lodging boarding. It is
vehemently denied that the old Abadie of the
plaintiffs have fallen down in the year 2015 as
alleged in this para. It is denied that Kishan Chand
has expired issueless and his estate has been
succeeded by the plaintiff number 3 through will as
alleged in this para. However, it is made clear that
there is no construction of the defendants existing
over part of khasra number 602, 599, 601, 612 as
alleged by the plaintiffs. The Abadies of the
plaintiffs are still in existence and is being inhabited
by the plaintiffs over the part of the suit land and the
photographs manifesting the existence of the old
Abadies of the plaintiffs are attached with the written
statement. It is important to note here that the
defendant number no. 1 have become co-owner in
the suit land upon the execution of the registered sale
deed dated 19-4-2018 from the co-owners in the
ownership column namely Gurbaksh Singh, Waryam
Singh, Mann Singh and Smt Roshani Devi Wd/o of
Khushal Singh. Copy of the registered sale deed
dated 19-4-2018 is attached herewith. It is further
relevant to note that earlier the predecessor in interest
of the defendant namely Sh Khushia had been
coming in the possession of the suit land. Thereafter
the estate of the Khushia has been succeeded by the
father of defendants late Sh Jagan Nath and the
father of the defendant but 1 along with the
defendant no. 1 who is not financially sound is
residing in the old existing Abadie over part of suit
land along with her wife namely Sunil Devi. The
predecessor interest of the defendants have raised
their Abadie over the part of the land comprising of
khasra number old 3055, 3056 extract copy of
Jamabandi for the year 1970-1971 is attached
herewith . Thereafter the village came under the
settlement operation and the settlement authorities
have carved out new khasra numbers 603, 611, 614
and 604 out of the old khasra numbers 3055, 3056.
The electricity energy metre installed in the name of
the defendant number 1 over the fallen Abadie since
10-11-1971 and the relevant application form as well
as the certificate from the official of the HPSEB is
attached herewith. It is pertinent to state here that the
answering defendant no. 1 belongs to the lower strata
of the society and falls under the category of the BPL
family. It is further important to note here that during
the heavy rains in the year 2017 the old Abadie of
the father of defendants in which he was residing
along with the wife of defendant number 1 Smt Sunil
Devi was fallen down. The defendant number 1 had
also availed the grant of the Government of
Himachal Pradesh as a relief to the distress Citizen
under the beneficial provisions those who have
suffered loss due to the damage caused by the heavy
rains. It is important to mention here that the the
father of defendants was a handicapped person and is
suffering from 75% vision disability. The Patwari
Halqa of the village had inspected the spot and had
further observed and noted the fallen Abadie of the
defendants and prepared the damage report dated 21-
8-2017 which was further counter verified by the
Kanungo Halqua and upon the completion of the
report the same was sent to the concerned authorities
for the distribution of the apposite monetary relief to
the family of the defendants. The photographs of the
fallen Abadie was also formed the part of the report
and is attached for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble
Court. It is further significant to state here that the
Pardhan and Up Pardhan of the Gram Panchayat
Sanghnai had also certified the fact that the old
Abadie has fallen down and the answering defendant
number 1 who is not financially sound to construct a
new residential house. Upon the release of the
financial support from the concerned authorities the
defendants before the eyes of the plaintiffs and other
inhabitants of the village and to the knowledge of the
plaintiffs had laid the foundation bed up to 8 feet in
height in order to reconstruct his fallen Abadie on the
same length and breadth. The existing foundation
bed of the defendants is vivid from the photographs
attached which is existing since the filing of previous
suit. The father of the defendants along with
defendant no. 1 on gaining further financial support
from their relatives and other family members in
order to raise residential Abadie before the coming
rainy season with intention to raise further
construction over the already existing foundation bed
over part of suit land, the plaintiffs who are inimical
and jealous to the prosperity of the defendants and
with the malicious intention and bad thoughts with a
view to cause loss and harassment to the defendants
so that the defendants may not be able to reconstruct
the existing fallen Abadie over part of the suit had
filed this false frivolous and mendacious suit for
injunction and had obtained the ex-parte status quo
order by deliberately concealing and suppressing true
and real facts from the Hon’ble court. When the
previous suit was filed the rainy season was ahead
and it was natural to conceive that the rainy season is
coming and the plaintiffs with their premeditated ill-
conceived thoughts and designs and in order to cause
loss and immense suffering to the defendants had
secured the order of injunction which is causing
undue hardship to the defendants. It is pertinent to
state here that the plaintiffs have deliberately made a
misstatement and a false statement in his averments
in the plaint as the Abadie of the plaintiff has fallen
down in the 2015 whereas on the contrary the old
Abadie’s of the plaintiffs are existing at the spot and
is apparent from the photographs. The plaintiffs
being the co-possessor on one hand is enjoying their
possession by way of their abadies and on the other
hand do not want the other co-owners to enjoy his
parcel of property which had fallen down due to the
heavy rains. . The gram panchayat of the village has
further given the certificate to the effect that the old
Abadie of the defendant existing over part of suit
land has fallen down in the rainy season of the year
2017 and the reconstruction is undergoing, whereas
the Abadies of the plaintiffs as well as their
predecessor in interest are intact and existing at the
spot. The aforesaid facts as well as the documents
unveil the falsehood and lies of the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs has had laid false averments before the
court as they have not disclosed all these true and
crucial facts before obtaining the order of injunction
and is thus not entitled for any relief claimed therein
even in the earlier suit and no had filed this
mendacious suit again. The iniquitous conduct of the
plaintiffs disentitles them from the discretionary
relief of injunction. It is the bounden duty of the
plaintiffs to have disclosed all the aforesaid facts, but
the plaintiffs had maligned the process of justice and
abused the process of law in order to obtain the order
of injunction against the defendants on insufficient
and false grounds so that defendants may not be able
to reconstruct their already fallen Abadie. It is
pertinent to state here that the Abadies of the
plaintiffs are situated contagious to the old fallen
Abadie of the defendants over the part of the suit
land comprising of khasra number 603 and 604, but
the true and vicious motive of the plaintiffs is that
they want to grab the valuable right of the defendants
by raising a false claim over the inhabited site
denoted by letters ABCD of the defendants over part
of the suit land where the old abadies defendants
were existing. The plaintiffs have no right to seek
restrain order against the defendants for the
reconstruction of the already fallen Abadie. The
defendants are only reconstructing the Abadie by
raising teen posh shed over the same foundation bed
which was constructed by them after receiving the
financial aid from the government. The status quo
order is causing constant hardship and financial loss
to the defendants as the valuable construction
material purchased by the defendants for the
reconstruction of their Abadie lying unused on the
spot. The ad interim injunction order is causing
undue hardship and exceptional depravity to the
defendants. The plaintiffs are guilty of suppreso-veri
and had touched the pure fountain of Justice with
intent to deceive and mislead the courts of law and
have brought the false baseless suit against the
defendants without the full disclosure of aforesaid
facts. The plaintiff as such have come with unclean
hands and is not entitled to be heard on merits,
further the ad interim injunction order deserves to be
vacated at its very threshold. The plaintiffs earlier
had filed this frivolous suit and procured a status quo
order and the status quo order was continued up till
appellete Court thereafter the case was listed for
plaintiff evidence the predecessor interest of the
plaintiff namely Mukhtyari Devi has also saddled
with ₹ 1000 costs for not producing evidence and the
previous suit was dismissed in default as the plaintiff
 was unable to produce evidence in order to support
his false pleadings. Moreover the present suit is
based upon invalidated and frivolous cause of action
as the plaintiff has not shown any special loss
suffered in the event that defendants were allowed to
raise construction over the portion denoted by letters
ABCD. When the defendants raised iron angles for
installing the teen posh shed the along with others
engage in a ruckus with the defendants

2. That Para no. 2 of the plaint is wrong and incorrect in

all its details. It is wrong to state that the defendants
have no right to raise construction in the Abadie
Tour of the plaintiffs according to their arbitrary
choice by making pick and choose without the
consent of the plaintiffs and other co-sharers and by
forcibly ousting the plaintiffs from exclusive
Hissadari possession as alleged in this para. The
defendants are not raising construction over any
vacant portion by way of their arbitrary choice rather
the defendants are about to raise/reconstruct their
already fallen Abadie on the same lines and within
the same length and breadth. Moreover, alleged
possession of the plaintiffs is of trespasser there can
be no partition amongst the owner and trespasser
pertinently the plaintiffs are not in possession of the
area denoted by letters ABCD in the site of the
defendants the same area is coming under the
possession of the defendants as co-owners. It is
pertinent to state here that the plaintiffs have not
averred any special loss hence the present claim of
injunction is based upon falsehood and pack of lies.
The plaintiff has not been able to establish their title
battle to the defendants and have not challenged the
title of the defendants hence no prima facie case
existed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is absolutely
denied that earlier the defendant number 1 and his
father by taking the benefit of the property of the
plaintiff and his co-sharers forcibly started raising
construction over the Abadie Taur of of the plaintiff
then other co-sharers namely Muktiari Devi and
Jagdish Chand has filed the suit for suit. The earlier
suit was also based upon wrong and incorrect facts.
The Grant of status qua order as well as its Upheld
by District Judge is also not disputed. However, the
alleged co-owners have not adduced any evidence
and they were also saddled with costs of ₹ 1000 for
not leading plaintiff evidence and when they could
not lead the evidence the said suit was dismissed in
default vide order dated 28-9-2022. The averments
made in the previous suit as well as in the present
suit are absolutely seminal and cut copy case version
 of the earlier plaint as well as the last cause advanced
by the Mukhtyari Devi which ultimately led to the
dismissal. The present suit is also got filed by
Mukhtiari Devi under the cloak and under the name
of the plaintiff same relief time and again which is
gross abuse of the process of law.

3. That para number 3 of the plaint is wrong and

incorrect in all its details. It is vehemently denied
that the defendants who are very head strong persons
of the locality since a week back have started
extending unwarranted and illegal threats to oust the
plaintiffs from exclusive possession and raise
construction according to their arbitrary choice by
making pick and choose without the suit land
partitioned to which they have no right to do so as
alleged in this para. It is only the co-owners
mentioned in the ownership column has the right to
claim Petition. The plaintiffs in order to suppress
their own wrong illegal acts had set up a false story
in this para and has levelled totally false frivolous
and baseless allegations against the defendants which
are nothing but a pack of lies. The plaintiffs have not
averred any special loss with respect to the
construction over the portion ABCD which is under
the excuse of possession of the defendants. The
 plaintiffs have not place on record in the site plan.
The true and correct site plan is attached herewith.

4. That Para no. 4 of the plaint is wrong and incorrect in

all its details. No such alleged even has ever
happened nor does the plaintiffs have any right to say
so. It is vehemently denied that defendants
defendants refuse to accede to the lawful and genuine
wishes of the plaintiffs since yesterday when the
defendants by engaging large number of labourers
and Masons started digging foundations over the
Abadie Taur of the plaintiffs by collecting huge
construction till without any of the right as alleged in
this para. The true fact of the matter is that the
foundation bed has been raised and constructed after
the receiving of the financial aid in the 2017 and the
construction is gradually and slowly is being raised
since then to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The
other accomplices of the plaintiff had harassed the
father of the defendants as well as the defendant no.
1 since 2017 up till 2022 and now again the same
litigation has been launched at the behest by another
alleged co-possessor which is impermissible under
the law.
 5. That Para no. 5 of the plaint is absolutely wrong and
denied in all its details. The plaintiff has got no cause
of action.

6. That Para no.6 of the plaint is only admitted to the

extent of the residence of the parties as well as the
situation of the suit land, the rest of the contents of
this para are wrong and incorrect. The plaintiff has
got no cause of action and is plaint is liable to be
rejected under order 7 rule 11 CPC.

7. That Para no. 7 of the plaint is wrong and denied.

The suit has not been properly valued.

8. That Para no. 8 of the plaint is wrong and denied.

The civil suit/921/21/18 has been dismissed in
default on 28-9-2022.

9. That Para no. 9 of the plaint is wrong and denied.

The suit of the plaintiff is false, baseless, vexatious
merits no consideration and deserves dismissal in the
eyes of law. The same may please be dismissed with
compensatory costs to the tune of Rupees (Two
lakhs) to the defendants in the interest of justice.

Dated: - 3-3-2023 Defendants

Verification: -
Verified that the contents of the
para nos. 1 to 9 of the written
statement are true and correct to
Defendants
Through Counsel

Rajan Sood
Advocate