IN THE COURT OF SH. DIVYANG THAKUR, LD.

DISTRICT
AND SESSION JUDGE, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

C.S. NO. ____OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

KULDEEP SINGH …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S GRAVITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. …DEFENDANT(S)

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

TO THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION FILED U/S 34 OF THE
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT 1963 FOR THE SALE DEEDS, (1)
REGISTRATION NO.13090, BOOK NO.1, VOL. NO. 3263,
PAGES 187 TO 194 DATED 25.05.2018 DAY FRIDAY (2)
REGISTRATION NO.17323, BOOK NO.1, VOL NO.3429,
PAGES 45 TO 51, DATED 11.07.2018 DAY WEDNESDAY (3)
REGISTRATION NO.17324, BOOK NO.1, VOL NO.3429,
PAGES 59 TO 65, DATED 11.07.2018 DAY WEDNESDAY (4)
REGISTRATION NO.17325, BOOK NO.1, VOL NO.3429,
PAGES 111 TO 118, DATED 11.07.2018 DAY WEDNESDAY,
DECLARED AS NULL AND VOID.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS/OBJECTIONS:

1. At the outset, it is submitted and stated on record that Defendant No. 1,2
and 3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defendants”) are
represented by the filing counsel(s) and the present reply is on behalf of
all the defendants arrayed in the present suit. The Defendants individually
are referred to in the present reply as the following:
 i. M/s Gravity Projects Pvt. Ltd., having its CIN No.
U45201DL2004PTC124538 hereinafter referred to as the
“Defendant Company/Defendant No.1”.

Board resolution for representation of the Defendant Company

passed on. Copy of the Board Resolution dated is herein annexed
and marked as “Annexure-A”

ii. Sh. Ravish Bhatiya hereinafter referred to as “Defendant No.2”

iii. Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhatiya hereinafter referred to as “Defendant

No.3”

2. That the present suit under reply is not maintainable in the eyes of law
and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost since the same has been
filed by the Plaintiff on totally false, concealed and baseless averments. It
is submitted that the Plaintiff had already filed a civil suit (CS
No.799/2019) seeking permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of
the same cause of action before the Hon’ble Court of Ms. Richa Gusain
Solanki, Ld. ASCJ, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

3. That the present suit is filed seeking different relief in respect of the same
cause of action and subject matter which is not maintainable in the court
of law.

4. That the present suit filed by the Plaintiff is devoid of any merits and is
liable to be dismissed with cost as the same is filed only to harass the
Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 for the best reasons known to the
Plaintiff.

5. Further it is submitted that the Present suit is not maintainable and liable
to be rejected outrightly as the Plaintiff, to harass the Defendant No. 2
 and Defendant No.3 have made them Parties to the suit despite being very
well aware of the fact that the signature on the collaboration agreement
were made only in the capacity of Director and as a representative of the
Defendant Company and not in Personal Capacity.

6. That there are no specific allegations/pleadings in the entire Plaint against

Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhatia and Sh. Ravish Bhatia to show that the said
Defendants had personally undertaken or promised anything to Plaintiff.
That in absence of any such specific allegation against the said
Defendants, no liability can be casted upon them.

7. That the Plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands
and is guilty of suppressing the true and material facts before this Hon’ble
Court. It is submitted that as per settlement deed dated 17.05.2018 the
Defendants were to construct and furnish twelve no.(s) of flats on the plot
measuring 278 sq. yds situated at Khasra No. 779 in furtherance of which
the Plaintiff shall execute sale deed in respect of 4 No.(s) of flats in the
name of the Defendant No.2 or his assignee.

8. That sale deed(s) in respect of the 4 flats situated at Khasra No. 779, were
executed in favour of the Defendant Company bearing the below
mentioned:

i. Registration No.13090, Book No.1, Vol. No. 3263, Pages 187 to

194 Dated 25.05.2018.

ii. Registration No.17323, Book No.1, Vol No.3429, Pages 45 to 51,

Dated 11.07.2018.

iii. Registration No.17324, Book No.1, Vol No.3429, Pages 59 to 65,

Dated 11.07.2018.
 iv. Registration No.17325, Book No.1, Vol No.3429, Pages 111 to
118, Dated 11.07.2018.

9. That, it is concealed by the Plaintiff that the Defendant Company is only

in possession of 3 flats out of the 4 flats. It is further submitted that the
Plaintiff by the help of his son namely Sh. Anil Kumar has forcefully
broke open the lock and had illegally possessed one of the flats i.e.,
bearing ___(reg. no)____ and given the same on rent to some Unknown
Person and is earing mesne profit.
10.That the Defendants have completely tried to get the peaceful possession
of the 4 flats situated at Khasra No. 779 which is owned by the Defendant
Company since the execution of above-mentioned sale deed(s), however,
the Plaintiff has been deaf to the requests made by the Defendants.
11.That the Plaint is liable to be dismissed as the Plaintiff in conspiracy with
his son namely Mr. Anil Kumar who since the date of the execution of
the Collaboration Agreement has created trouble, hindrances and
disturbances into the timely completion of the project by the way of
threatening, beating, scolding and ill-treating the staff and workers of the
Defendant Company. Further, there have been instances of stealing and
breaking construction equipment and site materials which the Defendant
suspect is done by the son of the Plaintiff.

12.That the son of the Plaintiff with the intention to delay the project(s), on
continuous time intervals, disturbed the Defendant No. 2 and Defendant 3
to add, change or delete in the mutually agreed map of the site, in view of
the fact that it made easy for the Plaintiff to take hold of all the
constructed flats illegally on the ground of delay in completion.
 13.Further, it is submitted that nevertheless the aforesaid the Defendant
Company is still primed to complete the incomplete projects on the
following conditions:

i. that the Plaintiff gives the peaceful possession of the 4 flats

belonging to the Defendant Company, admeasuring 278 sq. yds.
situated at Khasra No. 779 and

ii. that there is no disturbance, trouble and hindrances created by the

son of the Plaintiff namely Mr. Anil Kumar during the completion
of the left Projects.

PARAWISE REPLY/OBJECTIONS:

It is submitted that all the averments/allegations made in the Plaint under the written
statement are denied and disputed by the Defendants, save and except what are matter
of record or specifically been admitted herein. Mere non-transversal of any averment
of the Plaintiff must not be treated as an admission on the part of the Defendants, until
and unless the same has been specifically admitted. It is further submitted that the
contents of the Plaint, to the extent they are inconsistent with the submissions made
hereinafter in this written statement, are incorrect and are denied.

1. That the contents of Paragraph 1 of the Plaint are wrong and specifically denied
and the Plaintiff must be directed to prove himself to be the actual and lawful
owner of the property bearing No. 235-240, Khasra No. 778, 779 measuring 278,
300 and 176 Sq. Yds. Situated at Village Nawada main Najafgarh Road, New
Delhi 59 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Suit Property”). It is submitted
that the suit property was entirely constructed by the Defendant Company as per
the collaboration Agreement and according to the terms and conditions of the
Settlement deed 10.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Settlement Deed”)
between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, that the Plaintiff has to
handover 05 flats in the property i.e., Plot measuring 278 sq. yds. situated in the
 layout plan of village Nawada, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and 11 flats in the other
property i.e. Khasra No. 779, ad measuring 300 sq. yds and another plot in Khasra
No. 778, measuring 178 sq. yds both situated in the layout plan known as Nawada,
Uttam Nagar but the Plaintiff become dishonest and did not hand over the
aforesaid flats to the Defendant except 04 flats in Plot measuring 278 sq. yds
situated at Khasra No. 779, as per the settlement deed in the name of the
Defendant Company. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff remained a mute
spectator when his son namely Mr. Anil Kumar forcibly broke open the lock of
one of the above said flat and given the same on rent to an unknown person and
earning mesne profit from the same without any written consent or knowledge of
the Defendants.

2. That the contents of Para 2 of the Plaint are matter of records hence needs no
reply.

3. That Para 3 & 4 of the Plaint is a matter of fact and record hence need no
reply except the submission that it was not the Defendant No.2 but father of
the Defendant No.2 i.e., namely Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhatiya (Defendant No.3)
being active managing director of the Defendant Company who signed on
the Collaboration Agreement dated 22.10.2014 (hereinafter referred to as
“Collaboration Agreement”). It is further submitted that the Defendant
No.2 had absolutely no knowledge about the construction work as the
Defendant No.2 is the sleeping partner/Director of the Defendant Company.

4. That the contents of Para 5 of the Plaint are false, frivolous hence the entire
averments made in the Para 5 is strongly denied. It is admitted that as per the
Collaboration Agreement the Defendant Company undertook to complete the
construction work within 15 months from the date of handing over the
possession which was not delivered or handed over on 22.10.2014. It is
rather submitted that as per another two-collaboration agreement(s) signed
on 19.11.2014 the Defendant Company were obliged to complete the Project
 within 18 months of the physical handing over which was practically made
only after 22.12.2014.

5. That the contents of Para No. 6 of the plaint are matter of fact hence need no
reply except the submission that the plaintiff has not annexed any of his rent
agreements with the bills along with his plaint, hence, the Defendants are at
the liberty to file suitable reply as and when the plaintiff annexes the same.

6. That the contents of Para No. 7 of the plaint is false and frivolous hence the
entire averments made in the paragraph are strongly denied. It is specifically
denied that as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement the
Builder/Defendant No.2 would give to the Plaintiff an undated Cheque
bearing No. 024501 drawn on Axis bank of Rs. 10,00,000/- as a security and
the Plaintiff would not bank the Cheque as long as the work is carried out by
the Defendant smoothly. It is further denied that in case the Defendant, after
demolish of the existing structure of the suit property fails to carry the
assigned job, then Plaintiff is at liberty to bank the said Cheque and the said
Cheque had been issued in the name of the Plaintiff’s son Anil Kumar. It is
submitted that though the above said Cheque was given as per the terms and
conditions of the collaboration agreement to the then owner of the alleged
suit property undated, un-named as a security purpose for the reasons as
stated in the collaboration agreement but the same has never been presented
by the Plaintiff till date for the only one reason that there had not been any
reason with cause to present the same.

7. That the contents of Para No. 8 of the plaint is again false and frivolous
hence the entire averments made in the para are strongly denied. It is
specifically denied that the Defendant No.2 who had to pay electricity during
the period of the construction failed to pay the electricity charges, which was
paid by the Plaintiff, amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- to avoid the disconnection
 of the electricity connection. Rather it is submitted that the Defendant
Company had continuously without fail paid the entire electricity charges for
its usage to the concerned BSES. Copy of the BSES Bills paid by the
Defendant Company are annexed and marked herein as “ANNEXURE-B”

8. That the contents of para 9 of the plaint is again false and frivolous hence the
entire averments made in the paragraph are strongly denied. It is specifically
denied that the Defendant had not installed the construction meter and for
thye default the BSES levied the misuser charges amounting to Rs.
1,50,000/- since the Defendant No. 2 continued to use the domestic meter
instead of the commercial meter which Defendant had not installed. It is
further denied that the Plaintiff had to replace the domestic meter with that
of commercial meter as Plaintiff did not want to take further risk of using
domestic meter for commercial activity by the Defendant No. 2. It is rather
submitted that before the demolition of the old construction of the alleged
property, there had been a commercial shop with a commercial meter vide
CA No. 103195022 on the name of Smt. DARSHNA DEVI W/O SH. ANIL
KUMAR (son of the Plaintiff), hence, at the time of demolition of the old
construction of the alleged suit property the Plaintiff had given the
permission to the Defendant company to use the electricity from the said
commercial electric meter and to pay the charges as per the usage without
fail which the Defendant No. 2 and his company did without fail for which
the BSES bills are annexed with the reply.

9. That the contents of Para 10 of the Plaint is again false and frivolous hence
the entire averments and submissions made in the paragraph are strongly
denied. It is specifically denied that as per the terms the stipulated period of
15 months ended on 22.01.2016 and the Defendant No. 2 was liable to
complete the construction by this date and take NOC from the Plaintiff. It is
further denied that the Defendant No.2 breached these terms of agreement
 dated 22.10.2014 and even thereafter has not completed the construction
rather abandoned the construction work abruptly.

It is further denied that not only the Defendant No. 2 stopped

the construction work but whatever work he had done, he used the poor
material and substandard workmanship. Rather it is submitted that the
Defendant Company has used top class and good quality of material during
the entire construction work and had also constructed the suit property as per
the entire satisfaction of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff did not raised any
objection or issues regarding not constructing the property as per the terms
and conditions of the agreement but later on the Plaintiff with his dishonest
intention and under the instigation and guidance of his son namely Anil
Kumar, started creating nuisance and hindrances and even did not hand over
the physical possession of the floors which comes in the share of the
Defendant Company even after the completion of the construction work and
as mentioned in the collaboration agreements.

It is further mentioned that even a few months back

when the Defendants tried to start and complete the minor
construction/repair work in the other two plots after carrying out minor
demolition work on the plot in Kh. No. 779, measuring 300 sq. yds. and
another plot in Kh. No. 778, measuring 176 sq. yds. both situated in the
layout plan known as Nawada, Uttam Nagar within the local limits of
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, then also, the son of the Plaintiff namely
Anil Kumar raised objections, hindrances and disturbances and did not let
the Defendant Company to complete their job under an agenda of grabbing
the entire share of the flats of the Defendants

10.That the contents of Para 11 and 12 are are again false and frivolous hence
the entire averments made in the para(s) are strongly denied. It is specifically
 denied that as per collaboration agreement Annexure-II the Defendant had
put the specifications stated that the RCC frame structure would be
earthquake resistance, and there would be anti-termite treatment at various
stages of the construction but none of these conditions were satisfied by the
Defendant No.2.

It is further denied that the defendant did not complete the

construction except for erecting the frame of the structure and despite regular
reminder of the completion period, the Defendant No.2 did not bother to
fulfil his contractual obligation for completion of construction and the
Plaintiff even pleaded to the Defendant No.2 that due to non-fulfilment of
Defendant No.2’s obligations; the plaintiff was incurring loss on account of
payment of rent of the accommodation which he had taken on rent.

Rather, it is submitted that the Defendant Company has used top

class and good quality of material during the entire construction work and
had also constructed the suit property as per the entire satisfaction of the
Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has not raised any objection or issues regarding not
constructing the property as per the terms and conditions of the agreement
but later on the plaintiff become dishonest under the instigation and guidance
of his son namely Anil Kumar and started creating nuisance and hindrances
and even did not hand over the physical possession of the floors which
comes in the share of the defendant even after the completion of the
construction work and as mentioned in the collaboration agreements.

11.That the contents of para 13 of the plaint are again false and frivolous hence
the entire averments made in the paragraph are strongly denied. It is
specifically denied that at last on February, 2017, the Plaintiff called on the
defendant in presence of some respectable persons of the area wherein
breach of the agreement as to non-completion of the construction by the
Defendant No.2 was pointed out and the Defendant No. 2 admitted his fault
and breach of the agreement and further Defendant No. 2 asked the Plaintiff
to pay him Rs. 4,50,000/- to enable him to complete the construction for
which the Plaintiff obliged the Defendant No. 2 with the payment of Rs.
4,50,000/- through Cheque, However, the Defendant No. 2 after getting the
money ran away from the construction site.

Rather it is submitted that the Defendant company has used top class
and good quality of material during the entire construction work and had also
constructed the suit property as per the entire satisfaction of the plaintiff and
the plaintiff has not raised any objection or issues regarding not constructing
the property as per the terms and conditions of the agreement at any forum,
but later on, the plaintiff become dishonest under the instigation and
guidance of his son namely Ani Kumar and started creating nuisance and
hindrances and even did not hand over the physical possession of the floors
which comes in the share of the defendant even after the completion of the
construction work and as mentioned in the collaboration agreements.

It is further mentioned that the Plaintiff had given the aforesaid

Cheque of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the contractor/employee of the Defendant
Company namely SHRI. RAVI KUSHWAHA to carry out some extra work
with additional specifications which were not mentioned/agreed by the
parties in the collaboration agreement. It is further mentioned that the
plaintiff had even taken back Rs. 50,000/- in cash from Shri. Ravi Kushwaha
no sooner the Defendant Company presented and encashed the aforesaid
Cheque, hence, it would not be wrong to submit that the Plaintiff had paid
only Rs. 4 Lakh for the extra job been undertaken/enjoyed by him on/for his
own part of share/flats from the Defendant Company which is yet to be
calculated as per the new settlement deed dated 10.05.2018.
12.That the contents of para 14 to 16 of the plaint are again false and frivolous
hence the entire averments made in the paragraph are strongly denied. It is
specifically denied that as a result the Plaintiff himself had to get the
construction completed at his cost so that the Plaintiff could premises and the
Plaintiff had to incur huge money for no fault of his. It is further denied that
the plaintiff was required to raise walls, lay lantern to the building beside
other job that would make the building complete for use as residence. It is
further denied that the Plaintiff in order to call on the Defendant No. 2
visited his office many a time but the Defendant No. 2 had absconded for
which the Plaintiff had pasted the notice on the premises but it had no effect.

Rather, it is submitted that the Defendant company has used top class
and good quality of material during the entire construction work and had also
constructed the suit property as per the entire satisfaction of the Plaintiff and
the Plaintiff has not raised any objection or issues regarding not constructing
the property as per the terms and conditions of the agreement at any forum,
but later on, the plaintiff become dishonest under the instigation and
guidance of his son namely Anil Kumar and started creating nuisance and
hindrances and even did not hand over the physical possession of the floors
which comes in the share of the Defendant even after completion of the
construction work and as mentioned in the collaboration agreements. It is
further mentioned that the Plaintiff has not annexed the copy of the written
notice which he has pasted on the premises of the Defendant No.2’s Office.

13.That the contents of para 17 of the plaint is again false and frivolous hence
the entire averments made in the paragraph are strongly denied. It is
specifically denied that the Plaintiff out of his suffering lodged police
complaint but of no use and the Plaintiff had already spent Rs. 50,00,000/- to
make the said premises liveable and on 22.4.2017 shifted at the said building
along with his family members to reside at the said premises. It is rather
 submitted that the Plaintiff along with his entire family consisting of his all
sons and others family members kept on insisting to complete with extra
work/furnishings of their own share of flats first and subsequently after due
completion in all respect of those flats of the part/share of the Plaintiff, they
all (plaintiff and his entire family members) kept on entering and occupying
the same and started creating problems and hindrances for the Defendants
and the Defendant Company to complete the other part of their job which
they did with great difficulties.

It is further pertinent to mention that the Plaintiff and his family

members often used to steal the costly construction materials from the
other site and many times damaged the job done by the Defendant
Company.

14.That the contents para 18 of the plaint is again false and frivolous hence the
entire averments made in the paragraph are strongly denied. It is specifically
denied that the Defendant No.2 had cheated the Plaintiff and to cause further
harassment to the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.2 on 30.4.2017 barged the
house of the Plaintiff along with some anti-social elements and tried to
dispossess the Plaintiff from the said suit property. It is further denied that
the plaintiff rushed to the nearest police station but police refused to
intervene and advised the plaintiff to approach civil court.

It is rather submitted that the Plaintiff and his sons mainly Sh. Anil
Kumar used to beat and threaten the workers and employees of the
Defendant Company, whenever they come to their site to perform their
job with a hidden agenda of grabbing the entire share of flats of the
defendants.
 It is further mentioned that on 30.4.2017 and on other previous
dates and even till date whenever, the Defendants try to show/sell his
share of flats to his potential buyers/customers, the Plaintiff and his sons
start misbehaving with the potential buyers by using filthy and
threatening languages, hence, caused lakhs and lakhs of loss to the
Defendants and the Defendant Company which is yet to be calculated and
decided by the company of the Defendant.

15.That the contents of Para No. 19 are matter of records hence needs no reply.

16.That the contents of Para No. 20 are merely informative hence needs no
reply.

17.That the contents of Para No. 21 to 22 are again false and frivolous hence the
entire averments made in the paragraph are strongly denied. It is specifically
denied that the Defendant No.2 has failed to fulfil his obligations as per
terms of settlement, whereas the Plaintiff has fulfilled his obligations by
executing & registering four sale deeds on 11.07.2018. It is further denied
that the Plaintiff has repeatedly requested the Defendant No.2 to abide by the
terms but he does not pay heed and inflict mental agony and harassment.
Besides the conduct of the defendant has put great monetary loss to the
Plaintiff. Rather it is submitted that the Defendant Company
had fulfilled all its obligations and is primed to complete the incomplete
projects as per the settlement deed 10.05.2018. Further it is submitted that
the Defendant Company is in possession of only 3 out of 4 flats as the son of
the Plaintiff Sh. Anil Kumar had forcibly and illegally possessed one of flat
from the Defendant Company’s share and has rented the same to some
stranger.
18. That the contents of Paragraph 23 to 29 are matter of fact and record hence,
needs no reply.

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court
to may please:
A) Dismiss the present Suit for Declaration filed u/s 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 to declare the following sale deeds:
i. Registration No.13090, Book No.1, Vol. No. 3263,
Pages 187 to 194 Dated 25.05.2018,
ii. Registration No.17323, Book No.1, Vol No.3429, Pages
45 to 51, Dated 11.07.2018,
iii. Registration No.17324, Book No.1, Vol No.3429, Pages
59 to 65, Dated 11.07.2018,
iv. Registration No.17325, Book No.1, Vol No.3429, Pages
111 to 118, Dated 11.07.2018, as null and void.
B) Any other or further order and/or directions, which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of Plaintiff,
interest of justice

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE:

DEFENDANTS
THROUGH

RAJIV K. VIRMANI/AMIT KUMAR/

AYUSH DUTT TRIPATHI
 LEXSTONE CHAMBERS
ADVOCATES FOR THE DEFENDANT
212, 2nd Floor, MERCHANTILE HOUSE,
15 K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI
MOB: 9289028206| Email: [email protected]

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this___ day of March, 2023, that the

contents of Para No. 1 to ____ of the preliminary objections are
true and correct and those of the contents of paras No 1 to ___ of
the parawise are true to the information received and believed to
be correct.

PLACE: NEW DELHI DEFENDANT

DATE: