01-05-2015

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MALOUT

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. Divin .) MALOUT.

Supinder Kaur

Versus

Jangir Kaur etc.

Suit for RecoveryWritten Statement on behalf of defendant no. 1

R/Sir,

It is submitted as under:-

Pre-Objections:-

1.That the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form.

2.That plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standie to file the present suit. The replying defendant along with defendants no. 2, 3, 4 & 5 are legal and natural heirs of the deceased Jag Singh. As per law of inheritance replying defendant and defendants no. 2 to 5 have by birth right in the suit property and plaintiffs have no concern with the property left by deceased Jag Singh.

3.That previously plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction titled as Supinder Kaur V/s. Branch Manager etc. regarding the present subject matter which was withdrawn on 06-12-2014 from the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Malout. So order 2 rule 2 of C.P.C. is applicable. Plaintiff has no right to file the present suit on same cause of action regarding the same subject matter against the same parties. So the suit is liable to be dismissed.4.That the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration on the basis of forged and fabricated will prepared in connivance with her brother, father and -2-

brother-in-law and her previous counsel Jagdev Singh Brar, titled as Supinder Kaur V/s. Ranjit Kaur etc. which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.D.), Malout. So the succession of the Jag Singh was not decided. So plaintiffs have no right to file suit for recovery against the defendants.

5.That the replying defendants along with deceased Jag Singh have Joint Accounts and they have deposited their Savings in the banks and both have equal rights to withdraw the amount and mode of operation was specifically mentioned in the accounts either or survivor. Moreover in other accounts the replying defendant was a registered nominee of the deceased Jag Singh. She has full right to withdraw the amount. Plaintiff has no right to file the present suit regarding the suit amount. 6.

That the suit of the plaintiff is collusive between plaintiff and her husband Darshan Singh just only to harass the replying defendant.Because defendant on 24-12-11, I visited bank along with my son Darshan Singh where Darshan Singh along with bank official got thump imression of defendant on some papers and got the amount. Due to my old age and disease i do not know on what documents Darshan Singh got my thumb impression. Suit of the plaintiff is vague against law and facts. 7.That the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts and have not come to the court with clean hands. The suit of the plaintiffs is based on forged and fabricated Will dated 6-5-2002 later on registered on 27-12-2011 alleged to be executed by deceased Jag Singh. The alleged Will is prepared after the death of deceased Jag Singh to grab his property. The witnesses of the alleged Will i.e. Harbans Singh father and Shamsher Singh brother and Avtar Singh brother-in-law of Supinder Kaur who are close relatives of the -3-

Supinder Kaur. Moreover Will does not speak a single word regarding Defendant wife of Jag Singh . Moreover the Will was got registered out of Punjab State at the back of the defendant. The alleged Will shown to be executed at Dabwali in Haryana where deceased Jag Singh has no concern. Actually plaintiff Supinder Kaur alias Jaswinder Kaur alias Babby was previously married to Swaran Singh Baba of village Moujgarh (Haryana). She is not legally wedded wife of the Darshan Singh. Later on plaintiffs started living alongwith Darshan Singh and they are not in a speaking terms with deceased Jag Singh. Plaintiffs alongwith Darshan Singh never resided with the deceased Jag Singh at village Lohara. Plaintiffs are residing in the house of Kulwinder Kaur and Avtar Singh at Mandi Dabwali (Haryana) who is sister of the plaintiff and brother-in-law. Moreover previously on 30-3-2002 Supinder Kaur , her brother Kulwant Singh and their friend Raja alias Sonu and Darshan Singh made an attempt to kill the Rupinder Kaur daughter-in-law of Jag Singh legally wedded wife of Darshan Singh . An FIR no. 45 dated 31-3-2002 U/Sec. 307/323 and 34 IPC was registered against plaintiff and other accused in P.S. Lambi. Photo copy of the FIR is attached. That the plaintiffs alongwith defendant no.5, her sister Kulwinder Kaur and her brother Kulwant Singh and Shamsher Singh tried to take possession of the constructed house and a plot situated in Mandi Killianwali of the deceased Jag Singh. Due to this Jag Singh deceased has filed a civil suit no. 44 dated 10-6-2010 in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Malout in which the Civil Judge (J.D.) Malout vide order dated 8-10-10 restrained the plaintiffs alongwith her brother and defendant no.5 and other defendants from interfering into the possession of the house and plot. That suit was dismissed on 21-12-11 after the death of Jag Singh. A copy of the order is attached. Many times plaintiff and her husband -4-

alongwith brothers and sister tried to kill the deceased jag Singh. Jag Singh has moved an application to S.H.O., P.S. Lambi regarding the incident dated 18-4-2010 in which he has specifically mentioned that they will kill me and prepared my forged and fabricated will. Previously on 24-6-10 plaintiff no. 1 has also moved an applications against Jag Singh to Police Chowki at Killianwali, in that application plaintiff no.1 admitted that she has not good relations with deceased Jag Singh from the very begining. So they are not even in speaking terms, because they are freely moving applications against each other. Photo copies of applications are attached.

8.That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.

On merits:

1.

That para no.1 of the plaint is correct regarding the minority of plaintiff no.2, rest of the para is incorrect and denied. Plaintiff has nor right to file the present suit for herself and there is no question of filing the suit on behalf of minor. Because they have no right against the suit amount. Actually plaintiff has no concern with the succession of deceased Jag Singh. She is not legally wedded wife of Darshan Singh .

2.

That para no. 2 of the plaint is admitted regarding the death of Jag Singh, rest of the para is incorrect and denied. Previously Supinder Kaur was married to Swaran Singh alias Baba r/o village Maujgarh (Haryana). It is also correct that deceased was resident of Village Lohara. However it is correct that defendant no. 1 is widow, and defendant no. 2 to 5 are daughters and son of deceased Jag Singh. -5-

3.

That para no.3 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that Jag Singh deceased has executed a Will dated 6-5-2002 during his life time in favour of the plaintiffs. Deceased Jag Singh never executed any alleged Will in favour of the plaintiffs. It is incorrect the alleged will was executed by Jag Singh in favour of the plaintiffs in his sound and deposing mind during his life in equal shares. There is no question of any registration of the Will by Sub Registrar Dabwali. Plaintiffs tried to prepare an evidence by registering it out of State. The alleged Will is forged, fabricated and not binding upon the rights of the replying defendant. It was prepared after the death of the deceased Jag Singh in connivance with father, brother and brother in-law of the plaintiff and Jagdev Singh Brar, Advocate. The witnesses are closely related to Supinder Kaur and the alleged Will did not speak even a single word regarding replying defendant. Jagdev Singh Brar Advocate was the counsel of plaintiff Supinder Kaur in her previous litigation since 1993 with her husband Swaran Singh in different courts. Supinder Kaur is not a legally wedded wife of Darshan Singh. Actually plaintiffs alongwith Darshan Singh are members of a bad society. They are not in a speaking terms with deceased Jag Singh and his wife and daughters. That Jag Singh has no attachment with plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have no concern with the movable and immovable property of the deceased Jag Singh. 4.That para no. 4 of the plaint is incorrect and denied as alleged. It is incorrect that deceased Jag Singh only has accounts in the Sutlej Gramin Bank Mandi Killianwali and he has deposited various amount in his own name. Actually the amount was deposited by the replying defendant jointly with Jag Singh of their savings. Replying defendant has sold her parental property in the year of 1995 onward which was on the -6-

name of Fouja Singh who was real uncle (Chacha) of the replying defendant who was issueless and purchased property at Village Lohara and Village Lohgarh. So out of the income from that property the amount was deposited in bank. 5.That para no. 5 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. It is absolutely incorrect that the replying defendant in connivance with defendants no. 2 to 4 had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 29,34,928/- on 24-12-2011 as nominee of legal heirs of Jag Singh. It is also incorrect that she has executed a receipt of amount receiving as nominee of deceased Jag Singh. Actually the replying defendant has Joint Account with the deceased Jag Singh in Satluj Gramin Bank and the mode of operation was either or survivor and she has received the amount as a survivor. She has absolute right on the amount which she has received from the bank along with her Son Darshan Singh. 6.

That para no. 6 of the plaint is absolutely incorect and denied as alleged. It is incorrect that deceased Jag Singh executed a valid will in favour of the plaintiffs on dated 6-05-2002. It is incorrect that the plaintiffs are only legal heirs of deceased Jag Singh. It is also incorrect that defendants no. 1 to 4 in connivance with each other had not paid the amount to the plaintiffs. The alleged will is a forged and fabricated document prepared by plaintiff in Connivance with her father, brother and brother-in-law along with her previous counsel. It has no value in the eyes of law. It is prepared just to grab the property of deceased Jag Singh. Replying defendant and defendants no. 2 to 5 are legal and natural heirs of deceased Jag Singh. 7.That para no. 7 of the plaint is correct upto the extent that plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration -7-

which is pending in Civil Judge (Jr.D.), Malout and rest of the contents of this para are absolutely incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that replying defendants in connivance with defendants no. 2 to 4 had withdrawn the suit amount as trustee. It is incorrect that the plaintiff are entitled for the amount. That the other banks State Bank of Patiala, Punjab & Sind Bank had illegally against the rules and had not paid the amount to the replying defendant. They had not paid the amount against banking rules. That plaintiffs have no claim regarding the suit amount.8.That para no. 8 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. Plaintiff has no right to make any alleged request to the replying defendant and there is no such occasion for the same.

9.

That para no. 9 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. Plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit because she has no right, title or interest over the suit amount.10.

That para no. 10 of the plaint is correct upto that Satluj Gramin Bank Mandi Killianwali and rest of the para is incorrect and denied. Plaintiff is not residing at Killianwali. Actually plaintiff is residing with her sister at Mandi Dabwali.11.

That para no. 11 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. The suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.

12.

That para no. 12 of the plaint is correct regarding the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and rest of the para is incomplete regarding the litigation. Suit for permanent injunction was withdrawn by the plaintiffs. So order 2 Rule 2 is applicable. That the mutation no. 12028 and 2570 are -8-

pending in the Court of S.D.M., Malout and also a mutation no. 4806 regarding the property of village Lohgarh ( Haryana) regarding the inheritence of Jag Singh was sanctioned by the court of S.D.M. Dabwali infavour of plaintiff , but defendants filed an appeal in the court of Deputy Commissioner Sirsa who vide his order dated 29-8-12 set-aside the order of S.D.M. Dabwali and sanctioned the mutation in favour of legal and natural heirs of deceased Jag Singh and again plaintiff filed an appeal in the court of Commissioner Division Hissar who has dismissed it.

It is, therefore, requested that the suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous against law and facts may kindly be dismissed with costs.

Submitted by:-

Jangir Kaur wd/o Jag Singh r/o village Lohara Teh. Malout, Distt. Sri Muktsar Sahib.

---- defendant no. 1 Through counsel :-

A.S. Sandhu,

Advocate, Malout.Verification:

Verified that the contents of para no. 1 to 8 of pre-objections and para no. 1 to 12 of reply on merits are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and prayer is believed to be true. Verified at Malout on 07-05-2015.IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. Divin .) MALOUT.

Supinder Kaur

Versus

Jangir Kaur etc.

Suit for Recovery

Written Statement on behalf of defendant no. 2 to 4R/Sir,


Pre-Objections:-

1.That the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form.

2.That plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standie to file the present suit. The replying defendants along with defendant no. 1 & 5 are legal and natural heirs of the deceased Jag Singh. As per law of inheritance replying defendants and defendant no. 1 & 5 have by birth right in the suit property and plaintiffs have no concern with the property left by deceased Jag Singh.

3.That previously plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction titled as Supinder Kaur V/s. Branch Manager etc. regarding the present subject matter which was withdrawn on 06-12-2014 from the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Malout. So order 2 rule 2 of C.P.C. is applicable. Plaintiff has no right to file the present suit on same cause of action regarding the same subject matter against the same parties. So the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.That the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration on the basis of forged and fabricated will prepared in connivance with her brother, father and -2-

brother-in-law and her previous counsel Jagdev Singh Brar, titled as Supinder Kaur V/s. Ranjit Kaur etc. which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.D.), Malout. So the succession of the Jag Singh was not decided. So plaintiffs have no right to file suit for recovery against the defendants.

5.That the defendant no. 1 along with deceased Jag Singh have Joint Accounts and they have deposited their Savings in the banks and both have equal rights to withdraw the amount and mode of operation was specifically mentioned in the accounts either or survivor. Moreover in other accounts the defendant no. 1 was a registered nominee of the deceased Jag Singh. She has full right to withdraw the amount. Plaintiff has no right to file the present suit regarding the suit amount.

6.That the suit of the plaintiff is collusive between plaintiff and her husband Darshan Singh just only to harass the replying defendants and defendant no. 1. Because defendant no. 1 and 4 on 24-12-11, visited bank along with Darshan Singh where Darshan Singh along with bank official got thump impression of defendant no. 1 and signatures of defendant no. 4 on some papers and got the amount. Replying defendant no. 4 signed the documents at the instance of her brother Darshan Singh. Suit of the plaintiff is vague against law and facts.

7.That the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts and have not come to the court with clean hands. The suit of the plaintiffs is based on forged and fabricated Will dated 6-5-2002 later on registered on 27-12-2011 alleged to be executed by deceased Jag Singh. The alleged Will is prepared after the death of deceased Jag Singh to grab his property. The witnesses of the alleged Will i.e. Harbans Singh father and Shamsher Singh brother and Avtar Singh brother-in-law -3-

of Supinder Kaur who are close relatives of the Supinder Kaur. Moreover Will does not speak a single word regarding our mother wife of Jag Singh. Moreover the Will was got registered out of Punjab State at the back of the defendants. The alleged Will shown to be executed at Dabwali in Haryana where deceased Jag Singh has no concern. Actually plaintiff Supinder Kaur alias Jaswinder Kaur alias Babby was previously married to Swaran Singh Baba of village Moujgarh (Haryana). She is not legally wedded wife of the Darshan Singh. The replying defendants never attended the marriage of plaintiff with Darshan Singh. Later on plaintiffs started living alongwith Darshan Singh and they are not in a speaking terms with deceased Jag Singh and replying defendants. Plaintiffs alongwith Darshan Singh never resided with the deceased Jag Singh at village Lohara. Plaintiffs are residing in the house of Kulwinder Kaur and Avtar Singh at Mandi Dabwali (Haryana) who is sister of the plaintiff and brother-in-law. Moreover previously on 30-3-2002 Supinder Kaur , her brother Kulwant Singh and their friend Raja alias Sonu and Darshan Singh made an attempt to kill the Rupinder Kaur sister-in-law of replying defendants who was legally wedded wife of Darshan Singh . An FIR no. 45 dated 31-3-2002 U/Sec. 307/323 and 34 IPC was registered against plaintiff and other accused in P.S. Lambi. Photo copy of the FIR is attached. That the plaintiffs alongwith defendant no.5, her sister Kulwinder Kaur and her brother Kulwant Singh and Shamsher Singh tried to take possession of the constructed house and a plot situated in Mandi Killianwali of the deceased Jag Singh. Due to this Jag Singh deceased our father has filed a civil suit no. 44 dated 10-6-2010 in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Malout in which the Civil Judge (J.D.) Malout vide order dated 8-10-10 restrained the plaintiffs alongwith her brother and defendant no.5 and other defendants from interfering into the -4-

possession of the house and plot. That suit was dismissed on 21-12-11 after the death of Jag Singh. A copy of the order is attached. Many times plaintiff and her husband alongwith brothers and sister tried to kill the deceased jag Singh. Our father Jag Singh has moved an application to S.H.O., P.S. Lambi regarding the incident dated 18-4-2010 in which he has specifically mentioned that they will kill me and prepared my forged and fabricated will. Previously on 24-6-10 plaintiff no. 1 has also moved an applications against Jag Singh to Police Chowki at Killianwali, in that application plaintiff no.1 admitted that she has not good relations with deceased Jag Singh from the very begining. So they are not even in speaking terms, because they are freely moving applications against each other. Photo copies of applications are attached.

8.That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.

On merits:

1.

That para no.1 of the plaint is correct regarding the minority of plaintiff no.2, rest of the para is incorrect and denied. Plaintiff has nor right to file the present suit for herself and there is no question of filing the suit on behalf of minor. Because they have no right against the suit amount. Actually plaintiff has no concern with the succession of deceased Jag Singh. She is not legally wedded wife of Darshan Singh .

2.

That para no. 2 of the plaint is admitted regarding the death of Jag Singh, rest of the para is incorrect and denied. Previously Supinder Kaur was married to Swaran Singh alias Baba r/o village Maujgarh (Haryana). It is also correct that deceased was resident of Village Lohara. However it is correct that -5-

defendant no. 1 is widow, and replying defendants and defendant no. 5 are daughters and son of deceased Jag Singh.

3.

That para no.3 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that Jag Singh deceased has executed a Will dated 6-5-2002 during his life time in favour of the plaintiffs. Deceased Jag Singh never executed any alleged Will in favour of the plaintiffs. It is incorrect the alleged will was executed by Jag Singh in favour of the plaintiffs in his sound and deposing mind during his life in equal shares. There is no question of any registration of the Will by Sub Registrar Dabwali. Plaintiffs tried to prepare an evidence by registering it out of State. The alleged Will is forged, fabricated and not binding upon the rights of the replying defendant. It was prepared after the death of the deceased Jag Singh in connivance with father, brother and brother in-law of the plaintiff and Jagdev Singh Brar, Advocate. The witnesses are closely related to Supinder Kaur and the alleged Will did not speak even a single word regarding defendant no. 5. Jagdev Singh Brar Advocate was the counsel of plaintiff Supinder Kaur in her previous litigation since 1993 with her husband Swaran Singh in different courts. Supinder Kaur is not a legally wedded wife of Darshan Singh. Actually plaintiffs alongwith Darshan Singh are members of a bad society. They are not in a speaking terms with deceased Jag Singh and his wife and replying defendants. That Jag Singh has no attachment with plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have no concern with the movable and immovable property of the deceased Jag Singh.

4.That para no. 4 of the plaint is incorrect and denied as alleged. It is incorrect that deceased Jag Singh only has accounts in the Sutlej Gramin Bank Mandi Killianwali and he has deposited various amount in his -6-

own name. Actually the amount was deposited by the defendant no. 1 jointly with Jag Singh of their savings. Defendant no. 1 has sold her parental property in the year of 1995 in Village Balehar, Tehsil Patti onward which was on the name of Fouja Singh who was real uncle (Chacha) of the defendant no. 1 who was issueless and purchased property at Village Lohara and Village Lohgarh. So out of the income from that property the amount was deposited in bank.

5.That para no. 5 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. It is absolutely incorrect that the replying defendants in connivance with defendant no. 1 had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 29,34,928/- on 24-12-2011 as nominee of legal heirs of Jag Singh. It is also incorrect that defendant no. 1 has executed a receipt of amount receiving as nominee of deceased Jag Singh. Actually the defendant no. 1 has Joint Account with the deceased Jag Singh in Satluj Gramin Bank and the mode of operation was either or survivor and defendant no. 1 has received the amount as a survivor. Defendant no. 1 has absolute right on the amount which she has received from the bank along with her Son Darshan Singh.

6.

That para no. 6 of the plaint is absolutely incorect and denied as alleged. It is incorrect that deceased Jag Singh executed a valid will in favour of the plaintiffs on dated 6-05-2002. It is incorrect that the plaintiffs are only legal heirs of deceased Jag Singh. It is also incorrect that replying defendants in connivance with each other had not paid the amount to the plaintiffs. The alleged will is a forged and fabricated document prepared by plaintiff in Connivance with her father, brother and brother-in-law along with her previous counsel. It has no value in the eyes of law. It is prepared just to grab the property of deceased Jag Singh. Replying defendants and defendant -7-

no. 1 & 5 are legal and natural heirs of deceased Jag Singh.

7.That para no. 7 of the plaint is correct upto the extent that plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration which is pending in Civil Judge (Jr.D.), Malout and rest of the contents of this para are absolutely incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that replying defendants in connivance with defendants no. 1 & 4 had withdrawn the suit amount as trustee. It is incorrect that the plaintiff are entitled for the amount. That the other banks State Bank of Patiala, Punjab & Sind Bank had illegally against the rules and had not paid the amount to the defendant no. 1. They had not paid the amount against banking rules. That plaintiffs have no claim regarding the suit amount.

8.That para no. 8 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. Plaintiff has no right to make any alleged request to the replying defendants and there is no such occasion for the same.

9.

That para no. 9 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. Plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit because she has no right, title or interest over the suit amount.

10.

That para no. 10 of the plaint is correct upto that Satluj Gramin Bank Mandi Killianwali and rest of the para is incorrect and denied. Plaintiff is not residing at Killianwali. Actually plaintiff is residing with her sister at Mandi Dabwali.

11.

That para no. 11 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. The suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.

-8-

12.

That para no. 12 of the plaint is correct regarding the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and rest of the para is incomplete regarding the litigation. Suit for permanent injunction was withdrawn by the plaintiffs. So order 2 Rule 2 is applicable. That the mutation no. 12028 and 2570 are pending in the Court of S.D.M., Malout and also a mutation no. 4806 regarding the property of village Lohgarh ( Haryana) regarding the inheritence of Jag Singh was sanctioned by the court of S.D.M. Dabwali infavour of plaintiff , but defendants filed an appeal in the court of Deputy Commissioner Sirsa who vide his order dated 29-8-12 set-aside the order of S.D.M. Dabwali and sanctioned the mutation in favour of legal and natural heirs of deceased Jag Singh and again plaintiff filed an appeal in the court of Commissioner Division Hissar who has dismissed it.

It is, therefore, requested that the suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous against law and facts may kindly be dismissed with costs.

Submitted by:-

1.Ranjit Kaur 2.Rajwinder Kaur 3. Amandeep Kaur Daughters of Jag Singh r/o village Lohara Teh. Malout, Distt. Sri Muktsar Sahib.

---- defendant no. 2 to 4

Through counsel :-

D.S. GillAdvocate, Malout.Verification:

Verified that the contents of para no. 1 to 8 of pre-objections and para no. 1 to 12 of reply on merits are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and prayer is believed to be true. Verified at Malout on 07-05-2015.IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Divin .) MALOUT.

Harcharan Singh

V/s.

P.S.P.C.L.

Suit for Declaration & Permanent InjunctionWritten Statement

R/Sir,


Pre-Objections:-

1.That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form.

2.That plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standie to file the present suit. 3.That the Honble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as per provisions of the Electricity Act. Where statutory rights and remedies are available jurisdiction of Civil Court is excluded. 4.That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. 5.That the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Honble Court. Actually on 11-08-2013 when enforcement team of the P.S.P.C.L. during inspection found the plaintiff using electricity by theft directly from the pole for the construction of his newly house. The inspection team prepared a theft case in the presence of the plaintiff and supplied a copy of inspection report which is signed by the plaintiff and officials of the P.S.P.C.L. Then notice for the recovery of Rs. 2,62,882/- was issued to the plaintiff which he received on 27-08-2013. Then plaintiff has moved an application to the Dispute Settlement Committee. The Committee After hearing the plaintiff decided the case of the plaintiff on 18-12-2013 and reduced the theft amount 1,75,257/- as per request of the plaintiff. So notice for the recovery of that amount was issued to the plaintiff vide No. 8 dated 03-01-2014. So plaintiff found illegally thefting the electricity for the construction of his house. So the suit is liable to be dismissed only on this score alone.

5That the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction and he has not affixed the advolerum court fee because he wants to refund of Rs. 87,630/- which he has deposited in compliance of the order dated 10-01-2014 of the A.D.J. Sri Muktsar Sahib. On merits:

1.

That para no. 1 of the plaint is formal.

2.

That para no. 2 of the plaint is incorrect and denied for want of knowledge.

3.That para no. 3 of the plaint is correct upto that the plaintiff is construct a house in PUDA Colony, Rest of the contents of this para is absolutely incorrect and denied for want of knowledge. It is incorrect for affixation of Marbel Work contract was given on 25-07-2013. Plaintiff has prepared forged and fabricated documents for save himself from the theft case. 4.That para no. 4 of the plaint is incorrect and denied for want of knowledge. It is incorrect that on 03-08-2013 plaintiff purchased a Cement. Plaintiff has prepared forged and fabricated documents for save himself from the theft case. 5.That para no. 5 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and denied for want of knowledge. Plaintiff should directed to produce strict proof regarding the construction work.

6.That para no. 6 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and denied. However the plaintiff got the new connection on 15-07-2014. 7.That para no. 7 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and denied as alleged. It is absolutely incorrect that defendant got the signatures of the plaintiff on blank papers and thereafter with malafie intention in order to grab amount illegally from the plaintiff prepared a false checking report dated 11-08-2013 and one notice bearing No. 804 dated 20-08-2013 of Rs. 2,62,882/-. Actually both the above said inspection report and notice of demand was signed and received by the plaintiff. The inspection report of theft was signed on the spot by the plaintiff in the presence of the officials when he found illegally thefting the electricity directly from the pole by connecting blue wire. The wire was also impounded by the officials. However it is correct on 05-09-2013 plaintiff made a representation to the dispute settlement committee and dispute settlement committee after hearing the plaintiff and after discussing the various aspects of the case issued a notice no. 8 dated 03-01-2014 for Rs. 1,75,257/- as per reules. It is incorrect that the defendant assured the plaintiff that they will withdraw the theft amount. Photocopies of the Inspection Report, Notice No. 804 dated 20-08-2013, dispute settlement committee order dated 18-12-2013, Memo No. 8 dated 03-01-2014 and photocopy of bill are attached with the reply. 8.That para no. 8 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect that denied. It is incorrect that the amount assessed by the defendant is highly excessive and against the sale regulations of the P.S.P.C.L.

9.That para no. 9 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and denied. When the raid was conducted on 11-08-2013 plaintiff found illegally thefting the electricity. It is incorrect that plaintiff has no need of electricity connection till 03-08-2013. 10.That para no. 10 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that false report was prepared on 18-12-2013. 11.That para no. 11 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that no such electricity equipment were found at the time of checking dated 11-08-2013. It is incorrect that it is the duty of the defendant to issue temporary connection to the plaintiff for starting his connection work on 15-07-2013. It is the duty of the consumer to receive temporary connection as per his demand from the defendant. It is incorrect that the defendant failed to collect independent evidence regarding theft and notice dated 20-08-2013. It is also incorrect that defendant did not provide any copy of checking report. 12.That para no. 12 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that checking was not done by the Authorised Officer of P.S.P.C.L. 13.That para no. 13 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. It is also incorrect due to above said theft case the defendant refused to issue new electric connection to the plaintiff. It is incorrect that the plaintiff will cause irreparable loss. 14.That para no. 14 of the plaint is correct regarding the filing of the suit and deposit of amount as per directions of the Honble A.D.J. Sri Muktsar Sahib. Rest of the para is incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the amount as prayed for.15.That para no. 15 of the plaint is correct up to that after deposit of 50% amount in dispute the connection was provided to the plaintiff. Rest of the contents are absolutely incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that the defendant department employees are threatening the plaintiff to disconnect his electricity connection. However in case theft the defendants are authorized under the rules to disconnect the connection of the plaintiff without any notice. It is incorrect that the plaintiff will cause great hardship if the connection is disconnected.16.That para no. 16 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. The plaintiff never requested the defendant nor he has any right to do so.17.That para no. 17 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. Moreover the notice of amount was issued after the orders of the Dispute Settlement Committee, as per law.18.That para no. 18 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. 19.That para no. 19 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and denied. The Honble Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain such like cases.

20.That para no. 20 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. The plaintiff has not affixed proper court fee for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The detail mentioned in the pre-objections above.21.That para no. 21 of the plaint is correct upto regarding litigation ADJ Sahib Sri Muktsar Sahib and para is incomplete because plaintiff represented himself before the dispute settlement committee who after hearing the plaintiff decided the matter.

It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff false and frivolous based upon wrong law and facts is liable to be dismissed.

Submitted By :-

P.S.P.C.L. through Assistant Executive Engineer, City Sub Division, Malout, Tehsil Malout.

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Divin .) MALOUT.

Harcharan Singh

V/s.

P.S.P.C.L.

Suit for Declaration & Permanent InjunctionWritten Statement

R/Sir,


Pre-Objections:-

1.That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form.

2.That plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standie to file the present suit. 3.That the Honble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as per provisions of the Electricity Act. Where statutory rights and remedies are available jurisdiction of Civil Court is excluded. 4.That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. 5.That the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Honble Court. Actually on 11-08-2013 when enforcement team of the P.S.P.C.L. during inspection found the plaintiff using electricity by theft directly from the pole for the construction of his newly house. The inspection team prepared a theft case in the presence of the plaintiff and supplied a copy of inspection report which is signed by the plaintiff and officials of the P.S.P.C.L. Then notice for the recovery of Rs. 2,62,882/- was issued to the plaintiff -2-

which he received on 27-08-2013. Then plaintiff has moved an application to the Dispute Settlement Committee. The Committee After hearing the plaintiff decided the case of the plaintiff on 18-12-2013 and reduced the theft amount 1,75,257/- as per request of the plaintiff. So notice for the recovery of that amount was issued to the plaintiff vide No. 8 dated 03-01-2014. So plaintiff found illegally thefting the electricity for the construction of his house. So the suit is liable to be dismissed only on this score alone.

5.That the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction and he has not affixed the advolerum court fee because he wants to refund of Rs. 87,630/- which he has deposited in compliance of the order dated 10-01-2014 of the A.D.J. Sri Muktsar Sahib. On merits:

1.

That para no. 1 of the plaint is formal.

2.

That para no. 2 of the plaint is incorrect and denied for want of knowledge.

3.That para no. 3 of the plaint is correct upto that the plaintiff is constructing a house in PUDA Colony, Rest of the contents of this para is absolutely incorrect and denied for want of knowledge. It is incorrect for affixation of Marbel Work contract was given on 25-07-2013. Plaintiff has prepared forged and fabricated documents for save himself from the theft case.

4.That para no. 4 of the plaint is incorrect and denied for want of knowledge. It is incorrect that on 03-08-2013 plaintiff purchased a Cement etc. Plaintiff has prepared forged and fabricated documents for save himself from the theft case. -3-5.That para no. 5 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and denied for want of knowledge. Plaintiff should be directed to produce strict proof regarding the construction work.

6.That para no. 6 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and denied. However the plaintiff got the new connection on 15-07-2014.

7.That para no. 7 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and denied as alleged. It is absolutely incorrect that defendant got the signatures of the plaintiff on blank papers and thereafter with malafied intention in order to grab amount illegally from the plaintiff, prepared a false checking report dated 11-08-2013 and one notice bearing No. 804 dated 20-08-2013 of Rs. 2,62,882/-. Actually both the above said inspection report and notice of demand was signed and received by the plaintiff. The inspection report of theft was signed on the spot by the plaintiff in the presence of the officials when he found illegally thefting the electricity directly from the pole by connecting blue wire. The wire was also impounded by the officials. However it is correct on 05-09-2013 plaintiff made a representation to the dispute settlement committee and dispute settlement committee after hearing the plaintiff and after discussing the various aspects of the case issued a notice no. 8 dated 03-01-2014 for Rs. 1,75,257/- as per reules. It is incorrect that the defendant assured the plaintiff that they will withdraw the theft amount. Photocopies of the Inspection Report, Notice No. 804 dated 20-08-2013, dispute settlement committee order dated 18-12-2013, Memo No. 8 dated 03-01-2014 and photocopy of bill are attached with the reply.

8.That para no. 8 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect that denied. It is incorrect that the amount -4-

assessed by the defendant is highly exsessive and against the sale regulations of the P.S.P.C.L.

9.That para no. 9 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and denied. When the raid was conducted on 11-08-2013 plaintiff found illegally thefting the electricity. It is incorrect that plaintiff has no need of electricity connection till 03-08-2013.

10.That para no. 10 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that false report was prepared on 18-12-2013.

11.That para no. 11 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that no such electricity equipment were found at the time of checking dated 11-08-2013. It is incorrect that it is the duty of the defendant to issue temporary connection to the plaintiff for starting his connection work on 15-07-2013.Rather it is the duty of the consumer to receive temporary connection as per his demand from the defendant. It is incorrect that the defendant failed to collect independent evidence regarding theft and notice dated 20-08-2013. It is also incorrect that defendant did not provide any copy of checking report.

12.That para no. 12 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that checking was not done by the Authorised Officer of P.S.P.C.L.

13.That para no. 13 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. It is also incorrect due to above said theft case the defendant refused to issue new electric connection to the plaintiff. It is incorrect that the plaintiff will cause irreparable loss.

14.That para no. 14 of the plaint is correct regarding the filing of the suit and deposit of amount -5-

as per directions of the Honble A.D.J. Sri Muktsar Sahib. Rest of the para is incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the amount as prayed for.

15.That para no. 15 of the plaint is correct up to that after deposit of 50% amount in dispute the connection was provided to the plaintiff. Rest of the contents are absolutely incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that the defendant department employees are threatening the plaintiff to disconnect his electricity connection. However in case of theft the defendants are authorized under the rules to disconnect the connection of the plaintiff without any notice. It is incorrect that the plaintiff will cause great hardship if the connection is disconnected.

16.That para no. 16 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. The plaintiff never requested the defendant nor he has any right to do so.

17.That para no. 17 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. Moreover the notice of amount was issued after the orders of the Dispute Settlement Committee, as per law.

18.That para no. 18 of the plaint is incorrect and denied.

19.That para no. 19 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and denied. The Honble Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain such like cases.

20.That para no. 20 of the plaint is incorrect and denied. The plaintiff has not affixed proper court fee for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The detail mentioned in the pre-objections above.

-6-21.That para no. 21 of the plaint is correct upto regarding litigation ADJ Sahib Sri Muktsar Sahib and para is incomplete because plaintiff represented himself before the dispute settlement committee who after hearing the plaintiff decided the matter.

It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff false and frivolous based upon wrong law and facts is liable to be dismissed.

Submitted By :-


Through counsel :-

A.S. Sandhu


Verified that the contents of para no. 1 to 5 of pre-objections and para no. 1 to 21 of on merits of the written statement are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and prayer is believed to be true. Verified at Malout on 07-05-2015.IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Divin .) MALOUT.

Harcharan Singh

V/s.

P.S.P.C.L.

Suit for Declaration & Permanent InjunctionReply to Application U/O 39 Rule 1,2 R/W Sec. 151 CPC

R/Sir,


1.That para no. 1 of the application is correct to the extent of filing the present suit in the Honble Court. Rest of the contents of this para are incorrect and denied. Suit of the plaintiff is based upon very weak law and facts and there is no chance of its success.2.That para no. 2 of the application is incorrect and denied. The contents of the written statement may kindly be read as part of this reply.3.That para no. 3 of the application is incorrect and denied. It is absolutely incorrect that under the garb of the demand of the provisional order of assessment in question, the employees of defendant department are threatening the plaintiff to deposit the amount of the alleged provisional order of assessment with them otherwise they will disconnect his electricity connection from the site. The detailed reply has already been given in written statement which may kindly be read as part of this para.4.That para no. 4 of the application is totally incorrect and denied. It is incorrect that the plaintiff will cause irreparable loss.-2-

5.That para no. 5 of the application is incorrect and denied. Balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant.6.That para no. 6 of the application is incorrect and denied. Suit of the plaintiff is not prima facie.

It is, therefore, prayed that the application of the applicant is false and frivolous based upon wrong law and facts is liable to be dismissed.

Submitted By :-


Through counsel :-

A.S. Sandhu


Verified that the contents of para no. 1 to 6 of reply to application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and prayer is believed to be true. Verified at Malout on 07-05-2015.

01-05-2015

Documents

Transcript of 01-05-2015