I N THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISIION, FARIDABAD

"0-287, Ga" No.9, Opp. Ganga Vatlka, Vishunu Colonyl'Bauabgaml Distt. Faridabad.

...Piaintiff Versus

1. Ramesh Chand son of Shrl 3v HH-W 2. Rajesh son of Shri Ramesh Chand

3. Raju son of Shri Ramesh Chand

4. Madhu D/o Shri Ramesh Chand wife of Shri Adesh Ali Resident of House No.287, Gail No.9,

Opp. Ganga Vatika, Vishunu Colony, Baiiabgarh, Distt. Faridabad. ‘

...Defendants

E AN N I 0 Sir, The plaintiff most respectfully submit as under :

1 That the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 are owners in possession of House No.287, Gaii No.3, Opp.
Ganga Vatika, Vishu'nu C2221; Baiiabgarh, Distt. Faridabad measuring 60 sq. yards. The abov

premises is constructed upto second floor.

. That earlier the above said property was in the joint name of defendant No.1 and mother of plaintiff
namely Ramwati and as it was equally and jointly owned by them. The mother of plaintiff expired on
10.7.2017 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 as her legal heirs. All the documents
relating to the suit property is in the possession of defendant No.1. The plaintiff have equal share in the

half portion Le. 30 sq. yards alongwith defendant No.2 to 4. W .

3. That now the defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.2 & 3 wants to sell the above said
property. The defendant No.4 is married. The plaintiff is unmarried having no source of income and no
other

house to live. 4. That the defendants No.1 to 3 tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the

suit property so many times but due to intervention of neighbourers

and relatives they could not succeed in their illegal designs. 5. That the defendants No.1 to 3 in collusion
with each other and with

the malande intention to deprive the plaintiff from her legal right over the suit property and to
dispossess her and wants to sell the property without any right as the plaintiff also have equal share in
half portion i.e. 30 sq. yards aiongwith defendantNo.Z to 4 after the death of their mother being the
legal heirs. The plaintiff does not own any other property and does not have any other accommodation
except the suit property.

6. That the plaintiff asked the defendants No.1 to 3 so many times to see reason and to accept the
legitimate request of the plaintiff and not to alienate the suit property but the defendants No.1 to 3
refused to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent

injunction to this Hon‘bie Court.

7. That the cause of action of the present suit accrued to the plaintiff on each and every threat by the
defendants to alienate the suit property and finally on 18/7/2017 when the defendants threatened the
plaintiff

to dispose off the suit property and refused to the legitimate request

of the plaintiff, hence this suit.

8. That the suit property is located, parties to the suit reside and the cause of action accrued in
Faridabad within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, hence this Hon’ble Court has
jurisdiction to

entertain and try the present suit.

_9. That the valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction is assessed at Rs.200/on
which a requisite Court fee of Rs.25/has been paid on the plaint.

10. That no other litigation is pending or decided between the same parties in the same subject matter
in any Court of law. '

‘5

IN THE COURT OF KON‘BLE DISTRICT JUDGE. FARIDABAD

Civil Appeal No............ of 7.018

RuidcmWelfm Association (Regdo Venus M/s. 331113;!" am.

CIVIL APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09 04-2018 PAS ‘1' I) BY SIIRI VIVEK AGGARWAL CIVIL JUDGE
JR. DIVN FARIDABAD WHEREBY

DISMISSED THE APPLICATION lnder Order 39 RULE I 8: | ‘ CODE OF CIVIL PROCED RE IN CIVIL SUI NO.
235 OF 2016

. EDI-L
§5= Details of document: Page NoJ Annexure \“f‘ No. 1 Appeal up To I7. 2 Affldavit \ ‘5 H1 3 Resolution
15‘ I I. 4 Certified copy of order of the Lower I"! I“ 34,

Court

Vakalatnama

6 Talwana Aadhnr Card

Date : M ”05.2018

Place : Far-idabad . APPELLANT

”$3;

CHA, G.C. NAGPAL & SANDEEP BANswAL Asuox GAD'ro-M ADVOCATES

THROUGH COUNSELS :

a1 i

t z ‘ ‘ 9 8 O I. Thattheplainda'SodayisaRegdSocietyPnderdiepmvisimsofemcemedAct

and the Executive Body ofthe society has passed a molution dated 05.05.2018

and atnhoi'ized Shri Baldev Krishanto tilethepresent appeal beforetheHon'ble

Cmn'LBaldevKrishanisftdlyconversarnwimthefactsoftheeasebeingthe PresidentoftheSociety.
HehasbeenamhorizedtoengagetheCormselandto
sigxallthedoamusmlatedmtheprMappealandfmtherasmennonedmthe copy of resolution dated
05.05.2018 enclosed herewith as Annexure “A”, hence

thepreeentappealisbeingfiledbythecompetentperson.

2. Thameprescntappedhasbemhledbymeappenants/plainnh'sagainstthemder dated 09.04.2018 in a Civil

Suit No. 235 of 11.05.2916 by which Ld. Lower Court of Shri Vivek Agggal, Civil Jgdge Junior Division,
Faridabad was pleased Q‘ passanorderofdismissaloftheapplicationunderordcr39Rule1&2 ofCivil "\
Procedure Code. The Ld. Lower Court has declined the prayer of Interim Injunction restraining the
defendants from alienating and executing and registering and sorts of deeds and documents in favour of
any persons, to sell the three vacant parks areas lea/meant for the enjoyment of the residents. However
the Ld. Lower Court has passed an order of dismissal of the application illegally. by ignoring the law,
facts and evidence placed on the case file.

Civil Dateof Dateof DateofFiling CourtFeepaid CourtFeepaid

Suit Institution Decision Appeal. in Lower Court paid in Appeal No.

CS-1202 11.052016 09.04.2018 11.05.2018 Rs. Rs. 50/ of 2016 .

CLAIM IN APPEAL

impugned order of dismissal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 &. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code,
dated 99.04.2018 passed by the Ld Lower Court of Shri Vivek

Agggmal, Civil JudgeI Junior Division, F aridabad, in Civil Suit No. 1202 of 2016 in case titled as “RWA,
Lord Krishna Residency Vs. B.P.T.P Ltd and others.”

BRIEF FACTS RELAINC TO THE PRESENT CASE :

1. That the defendants (respondents in the present appeal), floated a scheme for allotment/ sale of
residential independent floor at Park Land Faridabad. The scheme was
lamehcdintheyeer2009,bythedefendantswhichwasknownasBP'l'P ParkElite
FloasFuidabadThedefendantsrepreaentedthatmeeonsmwtionshanewodd class

mmmhideaulunniomwmmodineslikchenIandseapeAmKidParksac.

‘8 3 V [(9

2, That three vacant Green Park areas were lell‘and to be developed by the company, as per V-Block
Development plan oi‘DPTl’ was provided for the residents as per density of the Block V he. for 72 flats
ol‘Lord Krishna Residency (RWA) Sector 76, Greater liaridabad. The members of the society have paid an
amount of Rs. 1,65,000/approx. for PLC of park to the defendants. The said amount of PLC have been
charged by the defendants from ihe purchasers of the flats/residents for front Green areas of Parks,
which has fully shown in the enclosed lay out plan / site plan. As per the commitment, its layout plan of
the defendants. as for as the above said three vacant Green Park Areas were shown as: first green park
area was to be provided with developed temple, second green park area with development of rides for
children and third green area for RWA Office and for Community activities as per the density of Block V.
Now the defendants with greed and malaftde intention trying to sell those three vacant green areas for
their unfair-7k profits and illegal gain. The photographs and map. havealready been placed on the main
file of the learned lower court. The defendants breached the trust of the residents intentionally and
deliberately and trying to encroach the areas left for parks and greenery and enjoyment of the residents
including kids and Senior Citizen of the society. The defendants are adamant to alienate/sell /transfer
the areas lett for the above said purposes. Despite the several requests of the residents, not to do the
illegal activities and not to breach the trust of the residents as the residents purchased the properties
with all the above said facilities and they have right to enjoy the same and the. defendants are not
entitled to transfer/seli/alienate the areas of parks fully mentioned and described in the. above paras.
The Ld. Lower Court has fully ignored thelegitimate rights of the residents without applying its judicial
mind and dismissed the application of the appellants/

plaintiffs erroneously. Hence this appeal.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL :

i. That the impugned order of dismissal against the appellants / plaintiffs passed by the Ld. Lower Court.
is ~based upon purely on the conjectures and surrnises. Moreover the Ld. Lower Court has not
appreciated the factual position properly

and nor interpreted the legal provisions attached thereto in true perspective.
2. That the’ Ld. Lower Court has completely given the contradictory and unsustainable findings while
dismissing the application and has ignored the

material facts brought on the record.

family supporter but also they hay e come at the point ol‘ starvation. the petitioners have sutt‘ered
mental agony. pain and sutl‘ering due to the

untimely death of the deceased.

That the respondent No.l drove the otl‘ending vehicle Mahindnt Bolero No.UP-85-AS-7333 in a Very
ntshly. negligently. \yitltout observing the traffic rules, and with a high speed and he caused this
accident theml‘ore. the respondent No.l being the driver of the drix ing otTending Mahindm Bolero
No.UP-85-AS-7333 is preliminary liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.l was
driving offending Mahindra Bolero No.UP-8S-AS-7333 with the permission under the control of the
respondents No.2 and therefore. the respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle is also
liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.3 being the insurer of the
ot‘l‘ending Mahindra Bolero No.UP-85-AS-7333 also liable for compensation to the petitioners under the
terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. Thus the respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable
to pay the

compensation to the petitioners.

25Brief descri otion of accident:That on 08.09.2017 at about 05.30 PM the complainant named Ramesh
Kumar S/o Sh. Buddhan Singh and hisbrother i.e. the deceased named Suresh Kumar was going for some
work near palwal. The Complainant was going

with his friend on his Motor Cycle no. HR-29U-9548 and Suresh Kumar was

going on his Motor Cycle no. l-lR-29AL~1751. The complainant was behind

Suresh’s motor cycle. When the motor cycle of Surcsh reached Alalpur Pnl. R
Palwal a Four wheeler came rashly and without following traffic rules and hit

the motor cycle of Suresh. Seeing this the driver of the offending four wheeler Vehicle fled from the
spot. T here after Ramesh along with other people took Suresh, who was unconscious and severly
injured, to Civil Hospital, Palwal. During the treatment the injured Suresh died in Civil Hospital Palwal.
FIR then was lodged at PS Camp l’alwal by Ramesh Kumar against the Driver of the ‘ Offending Vehicle.
Aftcr3 days of the accident when Ramesh was sitting at the railway Station Palwal along with someone
and talking about the said incident, a person named Nakul heard the discussion and abruptly said that
he saw this whole incident as he was beside the motor cycle of the deceased when a Mahindra bolero
hit the deceased. He also said that he followed the Offending vehicle and noted its no. as UP ~85 -AS-
7333 when the offending vehicle fled in speed towards palwal. 0n the statement of Nakul, Police started
its investigation and search of the said offending vehicle. After search of many days, the police finally
arrested the Driver of the offending vehicle on

26.10.20] 7 and also took the custody of the offending vehicle.

The said accident has been cau: ed by the driver of Vehicle (Respondent No.1) due to rash and negligent
speed and without observing the traffic rule

and not blowing horn.

On the statement of Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Buddhan Singh, R/o Vill. Sahajapur, Chaisa, Faridabad an FIR
ho. 0709 Under Section 279/304-A we

was Waylon dated 09-09-2017 in Police Station Camp Palwal awn“;

l LXYAi
IN THE MATTER OF:

BHAGWATI W/O SHRI RANJIT SINGH

R/O HOUSE NO. A-174, SAINIK COLONY, FARlDABAD (H".l

COMPLAINANT VERSUS SURENDER SINGH slo SHRl SATYA PRAKASH R/O HOUSE NO. 0-1044, DABUA
COLONY, N.l.T., FARlDABAD (HR.) . ACCUSED

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION-138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE lNSTRUMENT ACT AS WELL AS .UNDER SECTION-
420 OF l.P.C.

P.S.SGM Nagar

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That complainant and the accused are relatives and accused had borrowed a friendly loan of
Rs.13,00,000/(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) from the complainant in the month of ll/iarch, 2014. The
accused on taking the loan assured the repayment of the loan within the period of 15 months positively.
Thereafter, on the expiry of 15 months the complainant

demanded the said amount then the accused had sho. :0 million that he is unable to

pay the amount demanded.

2. That seeing the situation, Complainant had undergone a settlement with the accused in the presence
of Panchayat on 18-10-2015 and relatives that, taking note of the situation of

the accused and with mutual consent of both parties i.e. the Complainant and the accused,
it was decided that the accused will pay to the complainant, namely Bhagwati, a total amount of Rs.
10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) along with interest in monthly installments and the accused also had
given the assurance to repay the said loan within three years along with interest and upon this the
accused handed over 37 post dated cheques no. from 000006 to 000042 in the presence of all the
panchayat members and

relatives.

3. That in addition to above mentioned cheques, the accused issued 8 additional cheques No.000043 to
000050 of an amount of Rs. 7500 (Seven Thousand Five Hundred only)

personally to the complainant.

4. That the accused had already given eight cheques against the said loan earlier, which got bounced
due to “Funds Insufficient" resulting which, three cases had already been filed by the complainant
against the accused with use t'tle . .. . . I s Surender Sin:h which are

pending before the concerned court.

5.-That thereafter accused again promised to maintain the account balance for further payment as well
as funds for the previous dishonm . . w was (pending payment of the above mentioned cases) and
complainant on trusting his assurances, presented other 5 cheques i.e. Cheque no. 000013 dated 10-06-
2016 amounting Rs. 30,000/(Rupees Thirty

Thousand Only), Cheque no. 000050 dated 20-06-2016 amounting Rs. 7,500/~ (Rupees

Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only). Cheque No. 000014 dt. 10.07.2016, Cheque no. w
Wd Che-ue 3 . o00016 dt. 10.09.20 all three cheques were of amount Rs. 30,000/(Rupees Thirty
Thousand Only). (Original Cheques annexed as Ex.C-1 to C-5.) All the above cheques were drawn on
Bank at Baroda, Sector-16, Faridabad, to her banker i.e. Punjab National Bank, Branch NIT, Faridabad. All
the cheques were of total amount equals to Rs. 1,27,500/(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand
Five Hundred only). Thereafter, to my complainant's surprise, those 5' n ,..r-s got dishonoured by
accused banker because this time the bank account itself was closed with the bank as the return memo
indicated reason for dishonor as “Account Closed" vide separate return memos

dated 08.09.2016 and one of the memos of dated 15.09.2016 (Return Memos annexed as

Exc-s to 010).

6. that accused again gave five cheques having full knowledge and notice that the said cheques would
not enmsh, inspite of this the accused issued false and bogus cheques in favour of the complainant and
the accused have cheated and deceived the complainant,

thus the accused has become liable to be prosecuted under section-138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act as well as U/s.420 of I.P.C knowingly -. : :21:er and intentionally.

7. That the present complaint is being filed within the limitation period as provided under

the Negotiable Instrument Act.

8. That after the receipt of the dishonoured cheque., the accused got served with the legal notice dt.
05.10.2016 sent through registered A.D Post but the accused neither accepted the Notice nor made
payments of the amount of the dishonoured cheques within the stipulated period of the legal notice dt.
05.10.2016. Legal notic " 5.10.1016 is annexed as Ex.C-11

along with postal receipt as Ex.C-12.

9. That the complainant resides at Faridabad and banker of the complainant also situated at Faridabad
within the jurisdiction of this ch'ble cc ‘ ' ~ .: this Hon’ble court has got
jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

Prayer:

It is, therefore prayed that the complaint of the corr : ; nay kindly be accepted and the accused may
kindly be summoned under section-138 of the Negotiable instrument Act as well as Uls.420 of l.P.C, the
accused may be tried and prosecuted under the provisions of

law.

_ HMA Petition No. of 2018 In the matter of:

Bantl 5/0 of Sh. Prem Singh 8/0 3338, Gall No. 13, Sanjay Colony. near 59““ 23' Fan'dabad

M.: 9811545801 e-mail: Not having an e-mail Petitioner

Versus

Anju W/o Banti, D/o Sh. Puran, R/o H.No.-3, Nehru Colony Pahadl, Neer Maejid NIT Ferldebed.

Reepondent

RESPECT FULLY SHOWITH :

1. That the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was

soiemnlzed at Faridabad In accordance with the Hindu Rites and ceremonies on 11.02.2011. An affidavit
of the petitioner In this regard ie being annexed herewith ae Annexure A.
2. That the etetue of the pertiee at the time of marriage and at the

time of filing of the preeent petition wae/ Ie as under :

Huebend n Wife Status at the Hindu Umarrled Hindu Unmarried time of marriage : Residence at 3338,
Gail No. H.No.-3, Nehru the time of 13, Sanjay Colony Paha'dl, Near marriage Colony, near Masjid NIT

Sector 23, Farldabad 99. f1

, 'ranaauad ,

Norrie?! Elli?" ”‘ '

Statu's’at the ' tMarried Hindu -. 9

time of filing of

DeUHon ' Residence at 3338, Gail No. __ 3338, Gail No. 13, the time of 13, SanJaY Sanjay Colony, near
filing of petition Colony, near Sector 23,

Sector 23, Farldabad

Farldabad

3. That after the marriage, the respondent joined her matrimonial home at Farldabad. The petitioner
and the respondent started living together as husband and wife. The marriage was duly consummated
and out of the wed lock a son namely Nitesh was

born on 28.04.2012.
4. That the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was a simple marriage. After some time of
the marriage, the petitioner realized that the respondent was a lady of short temper and used to pick up
quarrel on trivial Issues without there being any substance in the same.

5. That on the other hand the petitioner tried to give all the love and affection to the respondent and
fulfilled all his obligations as a husband.

6. That the respondent after few years of the marriage started quarrel with other family members as
well. She also manhandied her Mother-ln-Law named Smt. Kanta, who after this quarrel filed two 3
complaints one on dated 08.09.2016 to Police Commissioner & SHO ~ and another on dated 16.10.2017
to CM Window & £332?

Commissioner for the cruolity done by the respondent.

7. That also on dated 26.12.2017 at about 11:00 PM, the respondent had beaten her husband with a rod
due to which petitioner started bleeding and got injuries on the right leg. The petitioner got treatment
from 8.x. Hospital, where the injuries are fully explained in the M.L.R. dated 27.12.2017.

8. That she used to pick up fight almost every week and mentally

torture and harass with abuses and bad words the petitioner and his family members. She does not do
any domestic work for Petitioner l.e. neither do any household chores nor make food on time and wash
clothes of the petitioner. On every fight she used to threaten to commit suicide and also threaten to file
false cases against the petitioner and his family.

9. That recently on dated 17.03.2018 the respondent again started

quarrelllng in the morning when asked to make breakfast. Also started abusing petitioner and his family
members. When the fight got heated she called her mother named Smt. Hardai, her sister named Mrs.
Pinki and her sister-in-Iaw named Mrs. Seema. All

these ladies started abusing the petitioner and his family members. Also they threatened the petitioner
that they will kill him or the respondent will kill herself resulting which the petitioner & his family will
serve their life in jailnAfter this incident the petitioner became helpless and left with no other option but
to file this petition in this Hon‘ble Court.

10. That there Is no impediment of law why the relief sought for is not

granted. 11. That both the parties are Hindu by religion. 12. That no other matrimonial proceedings are
pending between the

parties in any murt of law nor the same have been decided on

merits by the (owl oi competent or limited iurisdictinzi.

13. That the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 lastly rosrdud

together as husband and wife at Faridabad. The matrimonial

offences of cruelty both mental and physical were committid DY the respondent against the petitioner st
l'sridebsd. The 06"" cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent et
Ferldabad. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court at Faridabad has entire jurisdiction to entertain, try :06 Mil-
“1m"

upon the present petition.

14. The requisite court fee has been paid on the petition. EBAXEB

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass a
decree of divorce in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent inter-ails on the grounds of

cruelty both mental and physical thereby dissolving the marriage dated 11/02/2011 between the
Petitioner and the Respondent.