IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE CLASS I, BIKANER Suit No.

4943/2013

Bhaguram s/o Tularam 15, G.S. Marg, Bikaner, Rajasthan VS. Ram Gopal Verma s/o Gopal Kanth Verma 590, Mirchi Seth Road, Haldirams, Rajasthan ..Respondent ..Plaintiff

Suit for Specific Performance of Contract for Sale and for Permanent Injunction of the Suit Property Written Statement of the Respondent under Order 8 Rule 1 The Defendant respectfully states the following: 1. Para. 1 is admitted and needs no reply. 2. Para. 2 is admitted. Respondent is owner of the suit property. Respondents son is also part owner of suit property and thus is required to be made a necessary party to the suit. 3. Para. 3 is denied. The suit property has on its east side National Highway 26 and agricultural land on the rest three sides. Land map has been annexed as Annexure 1. 4. Para. 4 is admitted and needs no reply.

5. Para. 5 is denied. The agreed sale price negotiated was Rs. 8,00,00,000 as provided for in the correspondence through e-mail between the plaintiff and respondent, annexed as Annexure 2. 6. Para. 6 is denied. The cheque received by the respondent on 7th April 2012 was not honored by the bank. The corresponding reply from the bank is annexed as Annexure 3. 7. Para. 7 is admitted and needs no reply. 8. Para. 8 is denied. The cheque received by the respondent on 10th May 2012 was not honored by the bank. The corresponding reply from the bank is annexed as annexure 4. 9. Para. 9 is denied. The last date for executing the sale deed in respect of the suit property was 25th June 2012. 10. Para. 10 is admitted and needs no reply. 11. Para. 10 corresponding to the receipt of letter dated 8th May 2012 is admitted. Para. 10 corresponding to plaint that there was no reply from respondent to letter dated 8th May 2012 is denied. Respondent replied to letter of plaintiff dated 8th May 2012 on 9th May 2012, annexed as Annexure 4. 12. Para. 12 is denied. No phone calls were made by plaintiff to the respondent or respondents registered place of work. 13. Para. 13 is admitted. The sale deed could not be executed in favor of the plaintiff as the respondents son, who is also a co-owner of the suit property, was not duly approached by the plaintiff for execution of sale deed and granting of power of attorney in favor of the plaintiff. 14. Para. 14 is denied. Payment could not have been said to be made since both cheques received by respondent from the plaintiff were dishonored by the bank. Following such non-payment of agreed amount of Rs. 8,00,00,000 the suit property was not handed over in possession to the plaintiff, neither the sale deed executed in favor of the plaintiff. 15. Para. 15 is denied. There arose no cause of action for specific performance with respect to transfer of possession and title deed in favor of plaintiff since agreed payment of Rs. 8,00,00,000 was not successfully received by respondent. 16. Para. 16 is denied.

17. Para. 17 is denied. Suit property does not lie in Bikaner. Although entrance to suit property is very close to demarcation from which area of Bikaner begins, the suit property wholly lies in neighboring area of Haldirams. Thus, this Court does not have with it the necessary jurisdiction to try this suit. 18. Para. 18 is denied. For the purpose of court fees and purpose of jurisdiction this court, the suit is not valued at Rs. 27, 000, the correct valuation being Rs. 2, 75, 000. The value of the suit being more than Rs. 50, 000 this Court does not have jurisdiction necessary to try this suit. 19. The Respondent thus humbly prays that the suit be dismissed with costs. Place: Bikaner Date: 20.02.2013 Counsel for the Plaintiff Adv. Baidurya Chatterjee

Verification

I, Ram Gopal Verma, do hereby verify that the contents from paras 1 to 19 are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and personal belief and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein. Affirmed at Haldirams this 20th Day of February 2013. (Signature) Ram Gopal Verma s/o Gopal Kanth Verma Respondent