WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION

(UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
W.P.No. of 2024

Rajammal (alias) Rajalakshmii,

W/o Late.T.Rajan,
47/14, A. Sangampalayam,
Mahalingapuram Post,
Pollachi 642002. …Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The District Collector,

Coimbatore collector office,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Block Development Officer
Aanamalai Union,
Coimbatore.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer ( Bridges & Roads)
Urban and Local Bodies Development,
Pollachi Subdivision,
District Collectorate office,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents

WRIT PETITION
The address for service of all notices and processes on the petitioner is that of her counsels, S.

1
RAMESHKUMAR, A.VINUPRADHA, S. ARAVIND RAJ, A. SWATHI, R.SRIHARIHARAN
Advocates, having its office at No. 15, Krishnappa Chetty Street, Chennai-02
The address for service of all notices and processes on the respondents are as stated above in the
cause title.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANADAMUS or order or direction in the nature of writ directing
the respondents to lay Thar road on the northern side of the agricultural land situated in
R.S.no.779/A49, Periyapodhu Village, Anamalai Taluk, Coimbatore district, instead in the
middle of the agriculture land, based on the representations dated 23.04.2024 and 24.04.2024 and
pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary
in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai on this 7th day of May, 2024

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

2
 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 138
Prof M. CHINNATHAMBI 15, ellaiamman koil street,
A. VISHNU PRIYA West Mambalam
DHARSHANA S Chennai 600033.
ADVOCATES

Date : 14/11/2018
Place : Chennai

To,
Mr. M. Dhiraj,
S/o Barathan,
No, 12/f, Manojiappa St,
Tanjavur– 613001

Sir,
Under the instructions of our client, S. Sujatha, W/o T. Krishnakumar
residing at No. 47/14A, Valmiki street, East Tambaram, Chennai 600 059, we hereby issue the
following notice to you
1. Our client states that you have approached our client and requested for a sum of Rs.
3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) as a loan for your son’s education. Our client
states that seeing your pity condition, as a relative, our client has agreed to help you by
pledging our client’s 17 sovereigns of gold ornaments in the bank in our client’s
daughter’s name, Ms. Divya, and gave the money.
2. Our client states that on 23.05.2015, our client’s daughter, Divya, pledged the jewels in
the South Indian Bank , Tambaram Branch and received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and the
same was given to you.
3. Our client states that the said jewel loan was taken only on the assurance given by you
that you will repay the entire amount of loan given to you and you also assured to repay

3
 the same. Our client states that after giving you the money, she was shocked to find out
that you have narrated the same story to her husband and her mother and without her
knowledge obtained Rs. 2,00,000/- from her husband and Rs. 80,000/- from her mother.
Our client states that already she has lent Rs.3,00,000/- by pledging the jewels.
4. Our client states that you have obtained a total of Rs. 5,80,000/- from our client’s family
members and my client approached you for repayment of the loan amount.
5. Our client states that you have issued a cheque dated 11.10.2018 bearing No. 069213
drawn at Federal Bank, Thanjavur for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- towards the repayment and
discharge your liability to our client. Our client states that our client presented the cheque
dated 11.10.2018 in our client’s bank i.eSouth Indian Bank, Tambaram on 17.10.2018.
Our client states that to our client’s shock, your cheque dated 11.10.2018 drawn atFederal
Bank, Thanjavur was dishonored and our client’s bank, South Indian Bank intimated to
our client that the amount was realized and immediately retransferred to your account at
your instance. Therefore, the Bank colluded with you and played fraud. Hence, the
cheque got dishonored. Thereby, it is established that till date you have not paid the
amount, resulting in the commission of offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Therefore, on behalf of our client we hereby call upon you to pay the sum of Rs. 5,70,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only) to our client as per the cheque referred above
within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice failing which our client will be constrained
to initiate appropriate legal proceedings under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act
against you and hold you liable for costs and consequences thereupon.

ADVOCATE

4
 MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE PETITION

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, SAS NAGAR

(MOHALI)

Mr. Gurinder Singh aged about 35 years son of Sh. Ram Singh resident of H. No. BO
14-1760, Ranjit Nagar. Kharar, near Gurudwar Sahib Sector 11, District SAS Nagar
(Mohali) currently residing at H.No. 1014, Manchester Tower, Dubai Marina, Dubai
through his father and Power of Attorney holder Sh. Ram Singh S/o Sh.Sher Singh

. . . . Petitioner No.1

AND

Mrs. Sukhjit Kaur aged about 33 (32) years wife of Mr. Gurinder Singh (d/o Sh. Bahader
Singh) resident of House no. 273, Street no. 31, near Gurudwara Baba Deep Singh Ji,
Jujhar Nagar, Teh. & Distt, SAS Nagar.

. . . . Petitioner No.2

Petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Dissolution of Marriage
by decree of divorce by way of Mutual Consent.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1.That the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 took place on 09.11.2014 at
S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali by way of Sikh rites and rituals.

2.That the status and the place of residence of the parties at the time of marriage and at the time
of filing of this petition is as under:-

5
 Husband Wife

Status Place of Status Place of

residence residence

Before Sikh Chandigarh Sikh Chandigarh

marriage
Unmarried Unmarried

At the time of Sikh Dubai Sikh SAS Nagar

filling of (Mohali)
Married Married
petition

3.That after marriage both the parties to the petition lived together as Husband and Wife and
cohabited at Chandigarh. No child is born out of the wedlock of the parties.

4.That there were huge temperamental differences between the parties to the present petition and
as such they could not pull on matrimonial relationship together and both the parties to the
petition have been living separately since 24.02.2015. No cohabitation took place between the
parties to the petition since 24.02.2015 and as such the parties to the petition have been residing
separately from each other for more than two years continuously.

5.That various efforts were made by families, friends and relatives of both the parties for
reconciliation, but all efforts proved futile and the parties did not resume cohabitation. Now there
is no possibility or probabilities of their living together as husband and wife as the substratum of
the marriage has been irretrievably broken down. Both the parties are educated and understand
the consequences of the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Therefore, they have
decided to get divorce by mutual consent.

6.That all the claims as to gifts, articles presented/given before, at or subsequent to marriage
and/or as to maintenance of petitioner no.2 have been mutually settled in best interest of both the
petitioners by way of written Deed of Compromise (Memorandum of Understanding). A copy of

6
the said Deed of Compromise (Memorandum of Understanding) is annexed herewith as
Annexure P-1. As per the settlement agreement petitioner no.1 Gurinder Singh has undertaken
to pay a total amount of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to petitioner no.2 in two equal
installments.

7.That in consonance with the terms and conditions of the stated comprising a sum of
Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) shall be paid by petitioner no. 1 to
petitioner no. 2 in the shape of Demand Draft at the time of recording of first motion statement in
the present petition. The remaining payment of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty
Thousand only) shall be made in consonance with the terms of the compromise, as annexed, and
at the time of Quashing of the FIR No. 113 dated 27.11.17 registered at P.S. Women Cell, Sector
17, Chandigarh u/s 498-A, 406, IPC.

8.That the petitioner no.1 shall file for quashing of the above mentioned FIR and further for
quashing of proclamation proceedings issued in the above stated FIR and petitioner no.2
undertakes to assist towards quashing of the above mentioned FIR and proclamation proceedings
by appearing before respective courts of law as and when required and to make statement as per
the terms agreed in the Deed of Compromise (Memorandum of Understanding).

9.That after the grant of divorce by mutual consent the petitioner no.2 shall not have any claim
qua maintenance or anything against the petition no.1 and she shall be debarred from initiating
any type of proceedings or litigation against petitioner no.1 or any of his family members before
any authority or court. Simultaneously, even the petitioner no. 1 shall be barred from initiating
any proceedings or litigation against petitioner no. 2 or any of her family members thereafter.
Both the parties shall also be free to remarry or live as per their own free will and wish after the
passing of decree of divorce in the present petition.

10.That both of the parties have given their respective free consent for dissolution of marriage by
way of mutual consent and as such consent of any of the parties to the petition is not the result of
misrepresentation, inducement, fraud, force or undue influence.

11.That both the parties will not initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against each other in
any court or authority after the filing of this petition as all the issues have been amicably settled
between them. The parties to the petition have decided to withdraw the cases filed by respective
of them as per the settlement agreement annexed.

7
12.That there is no unnecessary or improper delay in filing a present petition.

13.That there is no legal ground why the relief shall not be granted.

14.That the marriage was solemnized within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court in District
SAS Nagar (Mohali) and as even both the petitioners have their permanent residence at District
SAS Nagar (Mohali), hence this Hon’ble court is having competency in all respects to entertain
and decide the present petition.

15.That the requisite court fee has been affixed on the petition.

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that a decree for dissolution of marriage

dt.09.11.2014 of petitioners under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act may be passed, in the
interest of justice, equity and fairplay.

Dt:- Submitted by:-

Mr. Gurinder Singh son of Sh. Ram Singh resident of H.

No. BO 14-1760, Ranjit Nagar. Kharar, near Gurudwar
Sahib Sector 11, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

Petitioner No.1

Through Counsel

AND

8
 Mrs. Sukhjit Kaur wife of Mr. Gurinder Singh (d/o Sh.
Bahader Singh) resident of House no. 273, Street no. 31, near
Gurudwara Baba Deep Singh Ji, Jujhar Nagar, Teh. & Distt,
SAS Nagar.

. . . . Petitioner No.2

Through Counsel

9
 WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER ORDER 8

BEFORE THE VII ASST CITY CIVIL COURT AT CHENNAI

O.S.NO.2832 of 2021

D. Balachandran
No.57/21A, Valmiki Street
East Tambaram,Chennai-600059 …Plaintiff

Vs.

T. Krishna Anand
No.32, Valmiki street
East Tambaram,Chennai-59 …Defendant

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER VIII.RULE 1

OF CPC

The defendant respectfully submits as follows.

1. The defendant is Mr. T. Krishna Anand, S/o.Late.Thirumurthi, Hindu, aged about 55

years, residing at No.32, Valmiki street, East Tambaram,Chennai-59 .
The address for service of notice and process on the defendant is that of his counsels A.
Selvakumar, S. Ramanathan, L.Lilly, M.Geetha Advocates having office at No. 25,
Ulagappa Street, Chintadripet, Chennai -600002.

2. This defendant submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is neither maintainable in law
nor on facts. Hence, liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

10
3. This defendant submits that the averments made in Para 1 of the plaint are facts which are
partially correct. This defendant submits that his father Late.Thirumurthi has 7 (seven)
sons and 5 (five) daughters including this defendant and was a Hindu Undivided family
under him. This defendant submits that subsequently by way of partition deed dated
15.12.1967 the properties were separated out of which the 4 brothers were settled with
their respective shares and parted away from the Hindu Undivided family. This defendant
submits that the defendant was born in the year 1970 that is after the said execution of the
partition deed. Therefore the said partition deed is binding on this defendant.

4. This defendant submits that the averments made in Para 2 of the plaint are facts. This
defendant submits that after the death of his mother Shanthi who has executed her last
will dated 28.02.1986 bequeathing her right over Shantha Kalyana Mandapam to my
father namely Late.Thirumurthi. This defendant submits that my father late Thirumurthi
executed a registered will dated 29.11.1991 in Doc.No.148 of 1991 on the file of the SRO
of Tambaram bequeathing his share in the Shantha Kalyana Mandapam in favor of this
defendant, in which this defendant is running a shop under name and style of Shanta Gold
House for the past 25 years in the suit schedule property without any interruption with the
knowledge of the plaintiff. This defendant submits that this defendant has an exclusive
legal right over the suit schedule property by the will dated 29.11.1991. This defendant
submits that averments made in Para 4 of the plaint shows that the plaintiff with malafide
intention to grab defendant property as filed a Partition suit in C.S.No.1419 of 1994
before the Hon’ble High Court only against his father and 3 of the brothers but have
cunningly included this defendant property in the 3 rd schedule of that suit which was in
continuous possession and enjoyment of this defendant. This defendant submits that in
the plaint filed by the plaintiff in C.S.No.1419 of 1994 has evidently misrepresented
before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras that my father late. Thirumurthi had only 7
sons despite this defendant being 8 th son has kept this defendant away from all the
proceedings in the above suit. This defendant submits that the plaintiff without making
this defendant as a party to the suit in C.S.No.1419 of 1994 has obtained a preliminary
decree dated 07.07.1999 with 1/4 th share in the schedule properties which also includes
this defendant property. Therefore this defendant submits that the preliminary decree

11
 dated 07.07.1999 was obtained by the plaintiff by fraud, by not making this defendant as
a necessary party in the suit and the decree dated 07.07.1999 is not binding on this
defendant. This defendant submits that this defendant is not a party to the partition suit in
C.S.No.1419 of 1994 this defendant was handicapped to challenge the preliminary
decree. Therefore the averment made by the plaintiff in Para 3 that this defendant has not
challenged the decree is false and contrary to the facts and the same is liable to be
rejected.

5. This defendant submits that the defendant as soon as came to know about the Preliminary
decree dated 07.07.1999 in C.S.No. 1419 of 1994 has filed an impleading application
before the Hon’ble High Court for making this defendant as the party to the suit in A.No.
1087 of 2023 and the same is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. This
defendant submits that the averments made in Para 4 of the plaint are false, frivolous and
the same is liable to be rejected. This defendant submits that this defendant has running a
shop in the suit schedule property for the past 25 years without any hindrance and the
plaintiff with the strength of the preliminary decree dated 07.07.1999 now claims 1/4 th
share in the suit property of this defendant shows that the plaintiff with the intention to
grab the defendant property which was wrongly included in C.S.No.1419 of
1994.Therefore the plaintiff cannot restrain this defendant from enjoying the schedule
property. This defendant submits that the plea made by the plaintiff that on the strength of
the preliminary decree dated 07.07.1999 the plaintiff is waiting for the allotment of his
share by metes and bounds by malafidely including this defendant property is baseless
and the construction and any improvements made in the suit property will only belong to
the person who has the title over the property. This plaintiff has neither title nor the
possession over the suit property and the claim made by the plaintiff is vexatious and the
same is liable to be dismissed.

6. This defendant submits that the cause of action in Para 8 is only based on the preliminary
decree dated 07.07.1999 in C.S.No.1419 of 1994 which was vitiated by fraud by the
plaintiff by suppressing the material facts before the Hon’ble High Court by not making
this defendant as a party to the suit. The present suit filed on the strength of that decree is

12
 not maintainable on law and not binding on this defendant. This defendant submits that
the plaintiff has no title or right over the suit property. Therefore the suit has to be
dismissed with exemplary cost.

Therefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above suit with
exemplary cost and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the above circumstances of the case.

Dated at Chennai on this day of February, 2022

Counsel for the defendants Defendant

VERIFICATION

I, Krishna Anand, S/o. Late. Thirumurthi, do hereby verify that the above Para 1 to 8 are true to
the best of my knowledge and belief and the legal aspects are based on legal advice.

Verified at Chennai on this day of February, 2023

Defendant

13
 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION

(INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY BEFORE

JUDGMENT)

(Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC)

In the court of Civil Judge, Senior Judge, at Patna

Application No 084/2020

In

Suit No 079/2020

Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-20/43, Shree Raj
Complex, Danapur, Patna

.....Petitioner(Plaintiff)

Versus

Sandeep Tiwari, son of Shri Nagendra Tiwari aged about 45 R/o B- 8/23, Krishna
Society, Rajendra Nagar, Patna

.....Respondent(Defendant)

Application for attachment of property before judgment.

(Order 38, Rule 5 of CPC)

Sir,

The applicant respectfully states as under:

14
 1. That the plaintiff suit is pending in the hon'ble court for suit for recovery of ₹
25 lacs against the defendant. The defendant has received summons.

2. That the defendant has given the advertisement in the newspaper for sale of
her agricultural land.

3. That the defendant has no other property therefore suit of the plaintiff will fail.

Prayer

It is therefore prayed to pass an order for conditional attachment of the defendant.

Place - Patna, Bihar

Date - 22.08.2020

...........................................

Signature of applicant

...........................................

Signature of advocate

Verification

I, Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-20/43, Shree Raj
Complex, Danapur, Patna, the petitioner do hereby verify that the contents of the
interlocutory application from para 01 to 03 are true and correct to best of my knowledge
and personal belief. Nothing has been concealed therein.

Place - Patna, Bihar

Date - 22 August 2020

15
 ...................................

Signature of applicant

........................................

Signature of the advocate

(Affidavit in Support of the Interlocutory Application)

In the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Judge, at Patna

Application No 084/2020

In

Suit No 079/2020

Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-20/43, Shree Raj
Complex, Danapur, Patna

.....Petitioner(Plaintiff)

Versus

Sandeep Tiwari, son of Shri Nagendra Tiwari aged about 45 R/o B- 8/23, Krishna
Society, Rajendra Nagar, Patna

.....Respondent(Defendant)

I, Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-20/43, Shree Raj
Complex, Danapur, Patna do hereby affirms as follows that the petitioner is fully
acquainted with the fact and circumstances of the case and the proforma attached with the

16
 application contains the true fact. The statements made above are true and nothing has
been concealed.

Verification

I, Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-20/43, Shree Raj
Complex, Danapur, Patna do hereby verify that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct
to best of my knowledge and personal belief. Nothing has been concealed therein.

Place - Patna, Bihar

Date - 22.08.2020

........................................

Signature of applicant

.........................................

Signature of the advocate

17
 CIVIL REVISION PETITION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE AT PUNJAB & HARYANA ORDINARY

APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sanjeev Yadav & Ors. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Arvind Yadav & Ors. …RESPONDENTS

CIVIL REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 115 (1) OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE
CODE, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2014 PASSED BY MRS. MANVIKA
BANSWAL, LD. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), GURGAON IN CIVIL SUIT
BEARING NO. 134/2007 TITLED “SANJEEV YADAV & ORS. V. ARVIND YADAV &
ORS.”

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the order
dated 30.01.2014 passed by Mrs. Manvika Banswal, Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Gurgaon in Civil Suit bearing No. 134/2007 titled “Sajeev Yadav & Ors. V. Arvind Yadav
& Ors.” wherein the suit for partition, permanent injunction and recovery of Rs.
4,32,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Thirty Two Thousand Only) and rendition of
accounts and mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property was
filed by the petitioners. The Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners
under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and has
passed an order against the petitioners herein without appreciating the documents and
evidence placed on record by the petitioners and settled legal proposition on the same.
The certified copy of the impugned order dated 30.01.2014 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure A-1.
2. That the brief facts which have led theplaintiffs/petitioners to file the present revision
petition are as follows.

18
3. That the petitioners have filed a plaint along with the site plan of the suit property and
other documents, which was devolved to the parties from their common ancestorssituated
within the abadi of Village Mohalera, Tehsil and District Gurgaon in the Court of Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon for the partition and permanent injunction. The
petitioners and respondents are co-owners of theproperty which is marked as
ABCDEFGH and has shown in red colour in the site plan attached therewith and bounded
as under:
North – Property of others
South – Rasta
East – House of Sh. Desh Raj
West – House of Sh. Mahipal
4. That initially the property in question was single storeyed building but subsequently the
petitioner No. 1 who is serving in the Indian Air Force got a portion of ground floor and
entire first floor in various stages from 1987 to as late as 2006 by virtue of the oral family
partition between the parties. The funds for the same were mustered from General
Provident Fund (GPF) loan from the petitioner No. 1 department at various stages and
other source of income. The record of the same exists. Therefore, thepetitioner No. 1 has
been using the property openly and peacefully.
5. That there remains always a dispute between the parties to the suit in using the property
in question as the property is still joint between the parties to the suit.
6. That the respondents started interfering into the peaceful possession of the petitioners and
the respondents were started threatening the appellants that very soon they will disposes
the said property. The petitioners requested the respondents many a times not to interfere
in their peaceful possession of their respective shares and not to dispossess them from the
property and get the said property partitioned by metes and bounds. But the respondents
were adamant and finally refused to accede to the request of the respondents on
15.04.2007. Therefore, hereinstated circumstances and facts led the petitioners to file the
plaint before the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon and which is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure A-2.
7. That the said plaint filed by the appellants was replied by the respondents vide their
Written Statement which was based on frivolous facts and clearly depicts the malafide

19
 intentions of the respondents. The copy of the written statementis annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure A-3.
8. That the petitioners further filed an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to explain the related facts more precisely and clearly for
the just and final adjudication. The petitioners seek for an amendment in the application
on the fact that the suit property is an ancestral property and was distributed between Sh.
Harcharan (father of the petitioners and grandfather of the respondent No. 1), Sh.
Mahipal and Sh. Siyanand (son of Late Sh. Ram Charan) by virtue of the family partition
which was took place about 30 years ago in the year 1982. After the family partition,
each of the parties came into the possession of their respective share in the property as
owner and a site plan was also prepared accepting and acknowledging the family
partition. Thereafter, Sh. Siyanand (son of Late Sh. Ram Charan), Late Sh. Harcharan and
Sh. Mahipal became the absolute and exclusive owners of the properties as shown in the
red and yellow colour in the site plan enclosed herewith.
9. That after the demise of Late Sh. Harcharan, the property falling in the share of Late Sh.
Harcharan devolved upon his legal heirs namely Sh. Jagdish Chand and the petitioners.
Since, Sh. Jagdish Chand also died, his 1/5th share in the property has also devolved
upon the respondents herein i.e. the property shown in red colour in the site plan attached
herewith. Therefore, the petitioners and respondents became the joint co-owners of the
property left behind by Late Sh. Harcharan and the same is marked as ABCIJ in the site
plan filed by the petitioners attached herewith.
10. That petitioner No. 1 is serving in Indian Air Force and was also posted out of the State
of Haryana from time to time and has lived in the suit property during vacations while the
petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are married daughters of Late Sh. Harcharan, who often visited and
stayed with the petitioner No. 1 in the suit property.
11. That during the lifetime of Late Sh. Jagdish Chand, it was agreed between the petitioners
and Late Sh. Jagdish Chand that the suit property shall be partitioned between the
petitioners and Late Sh. Jagdish Chand. However, before partitioning the suit property by
meets and bounds, Sh. Jagdish Chand died and his 1/5th share in the suit property has
devolved upon the respondents on many occasions to partition the suit property but they

20
 did not partition the suit property and subsequently categorically refused to partition the
same.
12. That in the month of August 2013, the petitioners came to know that the respondents had
induced the tenancy in the suit property. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are illegally and
unlawfully collecting the rent from the tenants from the undivided and un-partitioned suit
property belonging jointly to the petitioners and respondents.
13. That the petitioners have come to know that the suit property is fetching a monthly rent of
about Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only), which is being retained by the
respondents. However, the petitioners’ share in the rents illegally misappropriated by the
respondents comes to 4/5th of the total rent collected by the respondents, which comes to
Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Only) per month from the respondents since
October, 2010 till the filling of the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section
151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The petitioners are thus entitled to seek recovery
of Rs. 4,32,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Thirty Two Thousand Only) from the
respondents.
14. That the value of the suit property for the purposes of the Court Fees and the jurisdiction
is assessed at Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred Only) on which the appropriate Court Fees
of Rs. 25/- (Rupees Twenty Five Only) had already been affixed. The value of the suit for
relief of the recovery is valued at Rs. 4,32,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Thirty Two
Thousand Only) on which the Court Fees of Rs. 26,900/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand
and Nine Hundred Only) had already been affixed. The petitioners are also seeking
Rendition of Accounts from the respondents for appropriating the rent realized by the
respondents for unauthorized use and occupation in the petitioners share in the suit
property. The value of the suit for the purposes of Rendition of Accounts and mesne
profits is presently assessed at Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred Only) and an appropriate
Court Fees of Rs. 20/- (Rupees Twenty Only) has already been affixed. The petitioners
further undertake to pay all such additional Court Fees as may be directed by the Hon’ble
Court when the exact amount towards mesne profits is calculated by the Hon’ble Court.
15. That the petitioner has prayed in the amended application for the decree of partition by
mete and bounds of the suit property in favour of the petitioners declaring that the
petitioners are entitled to 1/5th share each of the suit property situated within the abadi of

21
 Village Mohalera, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and after the partition of the suit property,
handover the possession of their respective shares to each of the parties.
16. That the petitioner has prayed for the decree of recovery of sum of Rs. 4,32,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs and Thirty Two Thousand Only) in favour of the petitioners and
against the respondents.
17. That the petitioner has further prayed for the decree of Rendition of Accounts to be
passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents for the rent/proceeds
collected by the respondents from the tenants of the suit property w.e.f. September, 2010
to till the date of filling of the amended plaint and award the same to the petitioners along
with the interest @ 24% per annum. The certified copy of the application for amendment
filed by the petitioners is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-4.
18. That both the site plans filed by the petitioners are the same and exact. In order to show
the particular dimensions of the suit property more clearly, the petitioners has filed
another site plan with the better particulars of the same property with an application for
amendment. The copy of both the site plans are annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6 respectively.
19. That the respondents have filed their reply to the amended application filed by the
petitioners with incorrect facts and frivolous allegations against the petitioners with
malafide intentions to delay the justice. The certified copy of the reply filed by the
respondents to the application for seeking amendment of the petitioners is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure A-7.
20. That the petitioners crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely upon the
pleadings, documents and proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court, which have been filed
along with the present petition.
21. That aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition
on the following amongst other grounds:

GROUNDS OF REVISION
A. Because the impugned order dated 30.01.2014 is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and is
an outcome of gross non-application of judicious mind and is liable to be set
aside.

22
B. Because the Ld. Civil Judge has misconstrued the facts and the pleadings and has
thus passed an erroneous order.
C. Because the Ld. Civil Judge has failed to appreciate that the amended application
have been held to be valid as it is required for the proper and effective
adjudication of controversy between the parties and the prayer seeking the decree
of partition, permanent injunction recovery of Rs. 4,32,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
and Thirty Two Thousand Only) and Rendition of Accounts and mesne profits for
an unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property because no new defence
has sought to be introduced and no prejudice has been caused to the respondents.
D. Because the Ld. Civil Judge had drawn an incorrect inference while deciding the
suit instituted by the petitioners. It is an already established law that all
amendments are to be allowed which do not purport to set up a new case and
which will be necessary to mention for the purpose of determining the real
question in controversy between the parties.
E. Because it is a laid fact that all amendments are permissible when they are not
changing the nature of the suit and in any event would be in interest of justice.
Since, the amendments filed by the petitioners have been sought for the just and
proper adjudication and are not affecting the nature of the suit. Therefore,the
aforesaid order interalia shows that the Ld. Civil Judge had biased and arbitrary
approach and had passed the impugned order with this approach.
F. Because under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908; all amendments ought to be
allowed if it satisfy the following two conditions:- (a) of not working injustice to
the other side; and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real
question in controversy between the parties. Therefore, all the amendments seek
by the petitioners are not harming the interest of the respondents and are
necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between
the parties.
G. Because the Ld. Civil Judge has erroneously quoted the judgment titled “Pankaja
& Anr. V. Yellapa (Dead) By LRs. & Ors. 2004 (3) R.C.R.(Civil) 723: AIR 2004
SC 4102: (2004) 6 SCC 415” on the basis that the granting of an amendment
sub-serves the ultimate cause of justice. The above stated judgment is not relevant

23
 to the present suit as the application for amendment filed by the petitioners does
not affectthe cause of justice as it has been filed in a most bonafide and proper
manner for the proper and final adjudication of this Court.
H. Because the Ld. Civil Judge has also relied upon the judgment titled “Bhushan
Banerjee V. Tulsi Charan Basu & Ors. AIR (37) 1950 Calcutta 107”on the ground
of that no amendment can be allowed, if the amendment would introduce an
entirely new cause of action. The herein stated judgment has been delivered on
the basis of absolutely different facts and grounds. The petitioners have not arose
any new cause of action in the present suit and haveonly sought for the
amendment to explain the better particulars and facts of the suit property which
have already been mentioned by the petitioners in the suit.
I. Because the Ld. Civil Judge has further cited a judgment titled “Gorantla
Kondalarayudu V. M/s Marvel Organics, 1998 (2) Civil Court Cases, 465”on the
ground of introducing the entirely new and inconsistent facts. The herein stated
judgment has been delivered on the basis of different grounds to the present suit.
As the petitioners have not introduced any new and inconsistent facts to the
present suit and haveonly sought for the amendment of the new updated
comprehensive site plan with dimensions of the same property and Rendition of
Accounts and mesne profits arising out from the same suit property.
J. Because the Ld. Civil Judge has erroneously cited anotherjudgment titled “Smt.
Harbhajan Kaur V. Jaswant Singh, 2001 (3) RCR (Civil), 723”on the ground that
at this stage of the suit, the amendment has only been made to delay the
proceedings of the suit. This quoted judgment is very distinguishable on the basis
of circumstances and proposition of law as compared in the present suit. As the
petitioners have sought for an amendment in order to demark the actual and same
facts but with more clarity before the Hon’ble Court for the just, final and proper
adjudication of the present suit instead to delay the appropriate proceedings of the
Court.
K. Because the Ld. Civil Judge has cited the another judgment titled “Union of India
V. Pramod Gupta(Dead) by LRs and Ors., 2005 (12) SCC 1”on the ground that
delay and laches on the part of the parties to the proceedings would be a relevant

24
 factor for allowing and disallowing the application for amendment of the
pleadings. This quoted judgment also differs with the present suit. As all the
amendments which have been sought by the petitioners in the present suit were to
justify the interest and right of the appellants without any kind of delay on the part
of the petitioners in the present suit.
L. Because what is amended is the amendment of the better particulars of the same
suit property vide a new comprehensive site plan and other documents with the
Rendition of Accounts and mesne profits for an unauthorized use and occupation
of the suit property and that would not change the nature of the suit. Thus, the
Trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application.
M. Because the Ld. Civil Judge has grossly erred in misconstruing the pleadings and
the evidence of the petitioners and has thus passed the impugned order contrary to
the facts on record.

22. That it has been held in the following mentioned cases that the pleadings can be amended
under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC at any time during the pendency of the suit unless the
claim is barred by time. Therefore, no limitation has been provided for the amendment of
the plaint.Moreover, the application for amendment can be allowed if it is not changing
the nature of suit and is not affecting the interest of the other side. (i) “Munish Jain
V.Shimpy Jain, Civil Revision No. 3239/2013”; (ii) “Kanta Mehta V. Parminder Kumar
Mehta, Civil Revision No. 7062/2013”; (iii) “Bhawani Singh V. Krishna Nand, Civil
Revision No. 7330/2013 (O&M)”; (iv) “Zora Singh V. Nasib Singh, Civil Revision No.
106/2012 (O&M)”; (v) “Gurnam Singh V. Narinder Singh Saini, Civil Revision No.
3453/2013”
23. That the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Civil Judge on 30.01.2014. The certified
copy of the order was applied by the petitioners on 13.02.2014 and the same was received
on 17.02.2014. The present petition is thus within limitation.
24. That the petitioners have not preferred any other petition against the impugned order
either before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court.

25
 PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. allow the petition and set aside the order dated 30.01.2014passed by Mrs. Manvika
Banswal, Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon in Civil Suit bearing No. 134/2007
titled “Sajeev Yadav & Ors. V. Arvind Yadav & Ors.”
b. award cost in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
c. any other or further order, direction or relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

DATE PETITIONER
PLACE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PUNJAB & HARYANA ORDINARY

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sanjeev Yadav & Ors. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Arvind Yadav & Ors. …RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sanjeev Yadav, S/o Late Sh. Harcharan, aged about 54 years, R/o V.P.O. Moulahera, Tehsil and
District Gurgaon, Haryana, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That I am the petitioner No. 1 in the aforesaid petition and am well versed with the facts
of the case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the contents of the accompanying Petition under Section 115 (1) of the CPC, 1908
are true and correct to my knowledge and same has been drafted by my counsel under my
instructions and no part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therefrom.

26
 DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:
Verified at Gurgaon on this day of 2014 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been
suppressed therefrom.
DEPONENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PUNJAB & HARYANA ORDINARY

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sanjeev Yadav & Ors. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Arvind Yadav & Ors. …RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CPC, 1908 FOR STAY OF THE
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the petitioners have filed the accompanying petition against the order passed by
Mrs. Manvika Banswal, Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon in Civil Suit bearing
No. 134/2007 titled “Sajeev Yadav & Ors. V. Arvind Yadav & Ors.” dated 30.01.2014,
whereby the Ld. Civil Judge was pleased to dismiss the application under Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC, 1908 file by the petitioners. The petitioners crave leave of this Hon’ble
Court to refer to and rely upon the submissions made in the accompanying petition at the
time of disposal of the present application as the same are not being repeated here for the
sake of brevity.
2. That the balance of convenience lies in the favour of the petitionerts and against the
respondents.

27
 3. That the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injuries which cannot be
compensated in case the execution are not stayed by this Hon’ble Court pending the
present petition.
4. That the petitioners have a prima facie good case on merit and is likely to succeed.
5. That the present application has been filed bonafidely and in the interest of justice.

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the
further proceedings of the suit before the Court of Mrs. Manvika Banswal, Ld. Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Gurgaon in Civil Suit bearing No. 134/2007 titled “Sajeev Yadav & Ors. V.
Arvind Yadav & Ors.”

DATE PETITIONER
PLACE Through

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE AT PUNJAB & HARYANA ORDINARY

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sanjeev Yadav & Ors. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Arvind Yadav & Ors. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT
I, Sanjeev Yadav, S/o Late Sh. Harcharan, aged about 54 years, R/o V.P.O. Moulahera, Tehsil and
District Gurgaon, Haryana, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. That I am the petitioner in the above noted case and am well versed with the facts of the
case and as such am competent to swear this affidavit. 2.
2. That the contents of the accompanying application under Section 151 of the CPC, 1908
for stay are true and correct to my knowledge and same has been drafted by my counsel
under my instructions and no part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therefrom.

28
 DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:
Verified at Gurgaon on this day of 2014 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been
suppressed therefrom.
DEPONENT

29
 PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF :

SHREE BHAGWAN MAHTO,

S/O SHRI MANGAL MAHTO,

R/O H.NO.B-121, SATYA ENCLAVE,

PREM NAGAR-III, NANGLOI,

DELHI-110041 …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S GSJ ENVO LIMITED,

ENGINEERS & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS,

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,

51, HEMKUNT COLONY,

NEW DELHI-110048. …DEFENDANT

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.2,64,284/- (RUPEES TWO LACS SIXTY

FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FOUR ONLY)

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH :-

1. That the plaintiff is residing at the above said address and is doing job work of water
pipe line which include excavation, shifting & erection etc.

30
2. That the Defendant is a limited company executing projects on turnkey basis in the fields
of Water, Waste Water, Sewage Treatment Plants, Under Ground Reservoirs alongwith
Booster Pumping Stations, Sewage Pumping Stations, Civil works of Hydro Electric
Power Projects, Multistoried Residential & Industrial Complexes etc.
3. That on 06.09.2011 the Plaintiff had submitted his quotation with the Defendant company
for erection, testing & commissioning of MS common header and rising main of 50
MGD SPS at Yamuna Vihar, Delhi and after subsequent negotiations held in the office of
the Defendant, the Defendant company had placed an Order upon the Plaintiff vide letter
bearing Ref. No.GSJ/SBM/2011/12830 dated 04.10.2011 for the said work.
4. That accordingly as per the Order placed by Defendant company vide letter dated
04.10.2011, the Plaintiff had discharged his duty and done all the work with the entire
satisfaction of the Defendant company and accordingly placed various bills for the same
with the Defendant company, but the entire payment was never made by the Defendant
company to the Plaintiff and whenever the payment against the work done in terms of the
agreement was requested, the same was not made and only the paltry amount was paid.
5. That whenever the plaintiff had demanded the amount, the defendant company had
illegally denied the same by wrongfully claiming that no amount is due which is totally
false, wrong and unsustainable. It is submitted that the plaintiff had done total against the
work order and therefore he had completed the work in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the orders. Further the running bills were submitted by the plaintiff and the
same were accepted by the defendant company without any reservation/remarks/
observations and the defendant company had never ever raised any issue with regard to
the scope of work and also the quality and quantity of the work done by the Plaintiff.
6. That the plaintiff has raised several bills which have not been fully paid by the Defendant
and thus the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,64,284/- (Rupees two lacs sixty four
thousand two hundred eighty four). Further the plaintiff is entitled to the interest on the
above said outstanding amount @ 24% which the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
defendant company as the same has wrongly and illegally been withheld by the
Defendant company.
7. That aggrieved by the aforesaid acts and omissions of the defendant company, when the
Plaintiff confronted the defendant company about non-release of the payment, the

31
 defendant company started to delay the payment on false, frivolous and manipulated
grounds. Consequently, having no other option, the Plaintiff, through his Advocate, sent a
legal notice dated 26.05.2016 to the Defendant company through registered post on
31.05.2016, thereby calling upon the defendant company to make the payment of a total
sum of Rs.2,64,284/- (Rupees two lacs sixty four thousand two hundred eighty four)
against the aforesaid work within 15 days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid notice.
The aforesaid notice has been duly served to the Defendant company, but despite service
of the legal notice, the defendant company has neither replied to the same nor paid the
above said outstanding dues to the Plaintiff.
8. That there is no other efficacious remedy available to the plaintiff except to approach this
Hon’ble Court by way of filing the present suit for recovery.
9. That the present suit is filed well within the time prescribed under the law.
10. That no similar suit between the parties to the under whom they or any of them claim,
litigating on the same grounds has been previously instituted or finally decided by the
court of competent jurisdiction or limited jurisdiction.
11. That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose on various dates mentioned
herein above. It also arose on 04.10.2011 when the Defendant company had placed an
Order upon the Plaintiff, again when the Plaintiff raised the bills for the work done, again
on various dates when the Plaintiff had demanded the amount for the work done but the
Defendant company had illegally denied the same, it again arose when the Plaintiff got
served a legal notice to the Defendant company for payment of the amount of
Rs.2,64,284/-, but despite service the Defendant company has failed to make the payment
of the same. The cause of action is still subsisting as the defendant company has failed to
make the payment to the Plaintiff since then it is continuing to accrue on day to day basis.
12. That the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is fixed at
Rs.2,64,284/- upon which the requisite ad-valorem court fee has been paid.
13. That this Hon’ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the
present suit as both the parties to the suit reside and work for gain in Delhi.

P R A Y E R :-

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court to :-

32
a) pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of
Rs.2,64,284/- (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Four)
along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the present suit till the
date of actual realization of the decretal amount in favour of plaintiff and against
the defendant company, its associates, agents, assignees, representatives etc.; and

b) award the costs of present proceedings in favour of Plaintiff and against the
defendant; and

c) pass any other order/s which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case in favour of Plaintiff in the interest of justice.

PLAINTIFF

THROUGH

ADVOCATE

PLACE : DELHI

DATED : ___/07/2016

VERIFICATION :-

I, Shree Bhagwan Mahto, do hereby verify that the contents of the Paras 1 to 10 of the
plaint are true and correct to my knowledge and those of Paras 11 to 13 are true and
believed to be true on the basis of legal information and advice received. Last para is
prayer to this Hon’ble Court.

Verified at Delhi on this ___th day of July, 2016.

PLAINTIFF

33
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF :

SHREE BHAGWAN MAHTO …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

M/S GSJ ENVO LTD. …DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Shree Bhagwan Mahto S/o Shri Mangal Mahto R/o House No.B-121, Satya Enclave,
Prem Nagar-III, Nangloi, Delhi-110041, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:-

1. That I am plaintiff in the above noted case and being well conversant with the
facts of the present case am competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying suit for recovery has been drafted by my counsel at my
instructions, the contents thereof are true and correct to my knowledge and the
same be read and treated as part of this affidavit as the same are not being

34
 repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The contents of the accompanying suit
have been read over and explained in vernacular language.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

Verified at Delhi on this ___th day of July, 2016 that the contents of para 1 and 2 of above
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material
has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

35
 EXECUTION PETITION
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANGALORE
Ex. Case No._________ /2012
In
O.S. No.25900/2009

Under Order 21 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Decree-Holder’s Name : M/s.Faxtel System (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Number of Suit : O.S. No. 25900/2009
Decree-Holder : M/s.Faxtel System (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Address No.2/4A, Kensington Road,
Bangalore-560042.
Represented by its Manager-Finance,
Mr.E.Gururajan.

Judgement-Debtor : 1. M/s. Subiksha Trading Services Ltd,

Having its Registered Office at
No75 C, 2nd Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Adayar,
Chennai-600 020
Represented by its Managing Director.
2. Mr.R.Subramaniyan,
Managing Director,
Subiksha Trading Services Ltd,
No75 C, 2nd Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Adayar,
Chennai-600 020.
3. Mr.A.S.Suresh,
Vice-President Commercial,

36
 Subiksha Trading Services Ltd,
Laxmi Narayan Co-Operative
Housing Society,
Near Band Garden Bridge,
Behind Maharaja Furniture,
Yerawada, Pune-411011.
4. The Branch Head,
Subiksha Trading Services Ltd.,
42/1327(1), Power House Road,
Ernakulam, Kochi-682 018.

No. and Trial Court I Appellate Court High Court

Date of Decree O.S. No.25900/09 R.A --- R.S.A. No. -
D/D. 17.06.2010 D/D --- D/D ---

Whether any appeal has

Been preferred from the --- No ---
Decree

Payment or adjustment
Made, if any --- No ---

Previous application if any,

With date & result --- No ---

37
 Rs. Ps.
1. Decreetal Amount ... 3,72,361=00
2. Interest on Rs.3,46,046/-@ 12% p.a ... 89,972=00
3. Cost awarded in the Suit ... 27,509=00
4. Costs of the Appellate Court ...
5. High Court Costs ... Nil
6. Costs of Copies ... 15=00
7. Previous Execution Costs ...
8. Present Execution Costs ... 30=00
9. Advocate’s Fee @ 5% on Rs. ... 5000=00
______________
Total 4,94,887=00
______________

Less amount received NIL

Against whom
to be executed The Judgment Debtors
Mode in which the 1) Transfer of the Petition to the
Arrest of Judgment Debtor and Prl.City Civil Judge, Chennai.
Assistance of the 2) Attachment and sale of movables
Court is sought of JDR shown by the DHR,
3) Arrest and Detention of JDRs in
Civil Prison.

Advocate for the Decree Holder DECREE HOLDER

I, the Decree Holder above named, do hereby declare that what is stated above is true to the best
of my knowledge, information and belief.

38
 SCHEDULE PROPERTY FOR ATTACHMENT OF MOVEABLES

All that movables like furniture, fixtures, electronic gadgets,

electrical goods, gold ornaments, any other valuables found at No75C,
2nd Main Road, GandhiNagar, Adayar, Chennai-600 020, as shown by the
Decree Holder to the extent of Rs.4,94,887=00.

Bangalore,
Date: 25.08.2012 DECREE HOLDER

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE

Ex. Case No. /2012

Between:-
M/s.Faxtel System (India) Pvt. Ltd., ... Decree Holder
And:-
M/s Subiksha Trading Service Ltd., and others ... Judgment debtor

AFFIDAVIT

I, E.Gururajan, aged 52 years, S/o. Govindarajan, No.2/4A, Kensington Road, Bangalore, do

hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:-
1. I am the Manager-Finance of the Decree Holder Company, and I am aware of the facts of
the case. I am the authorized signatory of the decree holder.
2. I state that this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass a Judgment and Decree in
O.S.25900/2009 against the Judgment Debtors, dated 17.08.2012s, wherein the JDR were
directed to pay the decreetal amount of Rs.3,72,361=00 along with interest at 12% p.a. on
Rs.3,46.046=00 from the date of suit till the date of actual payment. I state that the JDR
have not paid any amount in pursuance to the Judgment and Decree.

39
 3. I state that the JDR have not questioned the said Judgment and Decree in appeal and as
on date the DHR has not received any notice or summons in respect of an Appeal filed by
the JDR from the appellate court.
4. I state that the JDR has willfully failed and neglected to pay the amount in pursuance to
the decree. I state that First and Second JDR are residing in Chennai and as such the
Decree be transferred to the Court of Principal City Civil Judge, Chennai in the interest of
justice and equity.

VERIFICATION

I, E.Gururajan, the deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and state that what is stated above is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and this is my name and
signature.
Identified by Me,

DEPONENT
Advocate. Sworn to Before Me
Bangalore,
Date: 25-08-2012.

40
 WITNESS RECALL PETITION
IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK MAGILA JUDGE, NAMAKKAL
Crl.M.P.No. OF 2016
in
S.C.No. 27/2015
Between:-
Maruthapillai
Son of Sangupillai
I-ward, Arur
Namakkal TK & DK ….Petitioner/Accused
And
State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Mohanur P.S. ….Respondent/Complainant
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.348 OF B.N.S.S.
The Petitioners humbly submit that:-
1. The petitioners are the alleged Accused in the above case. That on the last date of hearing
the cross-examination of P.W1 was closed.
2. The petitioner submits that on the date of hearing the counsel for the Petitioners/Accused
could not be able to ask some important questions to P.W1 in his cross-examination,
which are just and necessary to elicit the real facts from the mouth of the P.W1.
3. The petitioner humbly submits that the further cross-examination of P.W.1 is very much
required to elicit the real facts. If the P.W.1 is not recalled for the purpose of further
cross-examination the petitioner will be put to great loss. No prejudice will be caused to
the Respondent/Complainant if the P.W.1 is recalled for the purpose of further
cross-examination.
Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to recall the P.W1 for further
cross-examination, in the interest of justice.

Date:-
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED

41
 ANTICIPATORY BAIL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF PATNA

(Criminal Original Jurisdiction)

Crl.O.P.No. 1052 of 2020

In

Crime.No. Not known of 2020

(On the file of the Inspector of Police. Police Station, Danapur, Patna)

Ramesh Agarwal,
S/o Shri Prem Agarwal ,aged about 25 years,
R/o A-45/345, Shree Raj Complex,
Shaguna Mod, Danapur, Patna. .......Petitioner/Accused

Versus

State of Bihar,
Rep. by its Inspector of Police,
Police Station, Danapur, Patna ....Respondent/Complainant

FIR No. :______/ Dated 15/08/2020 / Police Station: Danapur, Patna.

Offense Under Sections: 85 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA,2023

Respected Sir/Madam, The

Petitioner Most Respectfully Submitted As Under:
1. That the petitioner and deceased were a married couple since 19.08.2019.

42
2. That the deceased died a natural death due to a fire that broke out from the LPG gas
cylinder in the kitchen complex.
3. That the petitioner has never treated the deceased with cruelty and has never made a
demand of dowry from her or family.
4. That the police has wrongfully implicated the petitioner under the Section and that
there is no prima facie case against the petitioner.
5. That the present FIR has been registered on false and bogus facts. The facts stated in
the FIR are fabricated, concocted and without any basis.
6. That the police has falsely implicated the applicant in the present case, as a result of
which an arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner and thereby the petitioner is
presenting this anticipatory bail petition before this Hon’ble court.
7. That the applicant is a respectable citizen of the society and is not involved in any
criminal case.
8. That the applicant is having very good antecedents, he belongs to a good family and
there is no criminal case pending against them.
9. That the applicant is a permanent resident and there are no chances of his absconding
from the course of justice.
10. That the applicant undertakes to present himself before the police/court as and when
directed.
11. That the applicant undertakes that he will not, directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
12. That the applicant further undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or the witnesses
in any manner.
13. That the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
14. That the applicant is ready and willing to accept any other conditions as may be
imposed by the Court or the police in connection with the case.
15. That the Court below has failed to consider all the facts and circumstances of the case
and has wrongly dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
16. That any other anticipatory bail application has not been filed by the applicant against
the same FIR before any other court except for the present bail application.

43
 17. That all the documents filed before the court below are being filed along with the
present application for anticipatory bail.

PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that the court may direct the release the applicant on bail in the event of his
arrest by the police.

Any other order which the court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case may be also passed in favour of the applicant.

Place- Patna

Date – 17/08/2020 ..................................

Signature of Applicant

....................................
Signature of Advocate

AFFIDAVIT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BILASHPUR

(Criminal Original Jurisdiction)

Crl.O.P.No. 1052 of 2020
In
Crime.No. Not known of 2020
(On the file of the Inspector of Police. Police Station, , Danapur, Patna)

Ramesh Agarwal,
S/o Shri Prem Agarwal ,aged about 25 years,
R/o A-45/345, Shree Raj Complex,
Shaguna Mod, Danapur, Patna. .......Petitioner/Accused

44
 Versus

State of Bihar,
Rep. by its Inspector of Police,
Police Station, Danapur, Patna ....Respondent/Complainant

I, Ramesh Agarwal, S/o Shri Prem Agarwal aged about 25 years, Occupation- Business R/o
A-45/345, Shree Raj Complex, Shaguna Mod, Danapur, Patna, do hereby solemnly declare and
affirm on oath as under:

1. That the accompanying application under section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been drafted at my instance and under my instructions.

2. That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 7 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief

VERIFICATION

I, Ramesh Agarwal do hereby declare that the contents of Paragraph 1 and 2 are correct to my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein.

Verified

Place- Patna
Date – 17/08/2020
Deponent

45
 DISCHARGE PETITION

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT

MANORAJAN COMPLEX
Crl. M.P of 2023
in
DVC .No. 443 of 2022
BETWEEN
1. Rayi Pallavi
Aged about 36 years W/O: Rayi Srinivas,
R/o: R/o:1-6-254 ,
Rambazar locality Jagtial town and Jagtial district -505327.
2. M. Udayasri Sree
W/o M.Venkatesh , Aged 31 years, Occ: House wife,
R/o . H.no 04-06-81, Shastri road,
Dwaraka Nagar, Karimnagar.
3. Rayi Srinivas
Aged about 44 years S/O: Rayi Ramulu,
R/o:1-6-254 , Rambazar locality
Jagtial town and Jagtial district -505327.
(Cause title shown as it is in DVC file,) ... Petitioners/Respondents R-4, R-5, & R-7
AND
B. Prathyusha
D/o Bommideni Ramesh , age 26 years , occ: House wife
R/o : H.NO 21-3-257, Moosa Bowli , Petla Buruj,
Charminar Hyderabad -500002 ...Respondent /Aggrieved Person

PETITION PREFERRED U/S 239 OF Cr.P.C. ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER NOs. 4, 5

and 7 TO DISCHARGE THEM IN CAUSE TITLE CASE DVC .No. 443 of 2022
May it please your Honour.

46
 1. The Petitioners, humbly submit, through this discharge petition, that they are the Original
Respondents Nos. R-2, R-3, and R-6 in D.V.C No. 443 of 2022 on the file of this Hon’ble
Court III Metropolitan Magistrate at Manorajan Complex Nampally.
2. It is submitted that Petitioner/ Respondent R-4 is eldest sister to her husband(R-1) and
eldest sister in law to Respondent, and Petitioner/ Respondent R- 5 is Second eldest sister
to her husband(R-1) and Second eldest Sister in law to Respondent, Petitioner/
Respondent R 7 is brother in law to her husband(R-1) and brother in law to Respondent.
On the outset, it is submitted that the Respondent/ Aggrieved Party has filed
a complaint U/ 12 of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the
Hon’ble Court III metropolitan Magistrate at Manorajan Complex Nampally in D.V.C No. 443 of
2022 pending before this Hon’ble Court are clear abuse of the process of law, and are not in
compliance with the law established under Criminal Procedure Code as averred and elaborate in
detail, under the following grounds and thereby, all the petitioners are liable to be discharged
from the case (supra).
The Petitioner further prays that the contents of the Respondents documents of the instant case
are to be read into this petition, in the interest of justice.

The Respondent /Aggrieved Person has alleged in her Complaint as stated below.
A. The Marriage between the Respondent /Aggrieved Person and ... Petitioner/s
Respondents R-1 in aforesaid DVC was performed on 19-03-2020 which is an arranged
marriage though Caste elders and performed under customary rights of Hindu and further
the Marriage was registered on 05-0-2020 during the time of engagement and as well as
demanded by the parents of Petitioner / Respondents R-1 and agreed by the Parents of
Respondent /Aggrieved Person an amount of Rs : 20,00,000 lakhs was given as dowry
along with Gold ornaments of thirty Thulas and Silver ornaments including Cash of Rs:
2,00,000/- for the purchase of household articles and Respondent /Aggrieved Person
lived happily for few months Later on 30-12-2020 the Petitioner/s Respondents R-1 has
dropped Respondent /Aggrieved Person at her Parents’ house for Sankranthi festival .
B. It is alleged by Respondent /Aggrieved Person she has received notice in H.M.OP. No
66/2021 on the file Civil Judge Jagital , Petition seeking divorce and the Respondent
/Aggrieved Person was put surprise later she has tried to speak with Petitioners/

47
 Respondents R-1 but she could not since all the Respondent kept her Phone number in
block the Caste elders also tried to pacify the matter but Couldn’t hence Respondent
/Aggrieved Person have seek for transfer of the Said Case and the Hon’ble court through
vide CMP-163 of 2021 was pleased to transfer the HMOP 66 of 2021 to City Civil court
Hyderabad and was Numbered under O.P. 77 of 2022 and when the Case was sent for
Counseling/ Mediation , the Parents of Petitioner/s Respondents R-1 has filed a I.A in
OP.No. 77 of 2022 under rule 33 of CRP to permit the father of Petitioners/ Respondents
R-1 to appear in behalf Petitioner/s Respondents R-1 with a special power of attorney
stating there in this Petitioner /Respondent R-1 had fled away to USA under H1 visa and
Petitioner / Respondent R-1 has not appeared for mediation and same posted for filling
the Counter on 17-11-2022.
C. It is alleged by Respondent /Aggrieved Person that she has filed a complaint before
women PS South zone and FIR 230 of 2022 was registered U/s 498-a IPC & 4&6 Dowry
prohibition act against all the Respondents but however the police did not disclose the
address of the Petitioner /Respondent No R-1 hence Respondent /Aggrieved Person filed
W.P No 38804 of 2022 and the Hon’ble high Court for State of Telangana was able to
reveal the address of Respondent R 1 to be Flat 3, wellington Manor, wellington street.
LUTON LUISFD, United Kingdom, which contrary to contentions filed by Petitioner /
Respondent No R-1 father in I.A / of 2022 in OP NO. 77/2022 as such Respondents had
played fraud by disconnecting the communication between the Respondent/Aggrieved
Person and Petitioner / Respondent R-1.
D. It is alleged by Respondent /Aggrieved Person that Petitioner/ Respondent No R-1 has
left Respondent /Aggrieved Person at her at Parents house Hyderabad with single dress
and without intimating the Respondent /Aggrieved Person has fled to united kingdom and
Respondent /Aggrieved Person is put at sufferance without any causal dresses or
maintenance to her fate isolated by respondents and thus was put at the mercy of her
parents after the marriage also and leading beggarly life. Aggrieved by this Respondent
/Aggrieved Person maniere times requested for her dresses but were denied by the in laws
who claimed not having any articles and the petitioner is forced to file WP No. 40400 of
2022 for providing protection by the police to lock her room contenting her belonging the
share household of the Matrimonial place in Jagital . Hon’ble High court was pleased to

48
 pass direction to the In-Laws of the Respondent/Aggrieved Person to handover the
belongings of the Respondent/Aggrieved Person within three days under intimation
before the Station house officer town police station Jagital. Accordingly, the council for
the Respondents, in-law sent a inventory to the council of the petitioner the list of articles
containing 93 items along with a request to intimate the time and date for receiving the
said articles at the behest of the SHO Town Police Station Jagital.
E. It is alleged by Respondent /Aggrieved Person that Petitioner / Respondent R-1 had in the
company of the other Respondents no 2 to 7 raised his hands on 29-12-2020, one day
before the complainant was dropped at her parents ‘house at Hyderabad for a quarrel to
bring additional dowry to perform the marriage of his younger sister and further
threatened not to say all the quarrel to the parents of the Respondent /Aggrieved Person
and further said that he wouldn't let the Respondent /Aggrieved Person come back to join
the company of the Respondent R-1 unless his demand is fulfilled.
F. It is alleged by Respondent /Aggrieved Person the aforesaid day to day behaviour of
Respondents R- 1 to R- 7 in aforesaid DVC 443 of 2022 was such as to disturb the mental
peace and harmony of the Respondent /Aggrieved Person which differently amounts to
cruelty and their peculiar way of behaviour proves sufficient to constitute cruelty.

3. It is submitted by the Petitioner’s /Respondents that even if the allegations in the

complaint are taken to be true, the said allegations do not make out any case against the
Petitioner’s /Respondents herein more particularly the offences under the Protection of
women from Domestic Violence act, 2005.
4. It is submitted by the Petitioner’s /Respondents that that as per the various averments
made by the Respondent/Aggrieved Person in different contexts would clearly goes to
show that the compliant is vexatious and is made with ulterior motives and
Contradictions to her previous Claims in 498-a Case .
5. It is further submitted by the Petitioners/Respondent Whereas the Respondent/Aggrieved
Person has claimed in her original Complaint written to SHO of women Police Station
south Zone Charminar, dated 26-08-2022 that she was dropped at her parent’s house in
the 2nd week of January 2021 and “ At the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.
20,00,000/-, 30 tulas gold, all house hold articles worth of Rs.2,00,000/ marriage

49
 expenses Rs.10,00,000/- After marriage she joined with company of her husband at her
matrimonial home. They both lived happy married life for 10 months there after her
husband in laws started harassing her to bring addl. dowry of Rs.50,00,000/-, Since they
were not satisfied with dowry given by her parents during the time of marriage . It is
submitted by the Petitioners/ Respondents that the contradicting statement given by
Respondent/Aggrieved Person and to further mislead this Hon’ble court the
Respondent/Aggrieved has suppressed her original written complaint addressing to SHO
women Police Station south Zone Charminar, and only filed Copy of FIR 230 of 2022
before the III Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad in her DVC 443 of 2022 Hence the
allegation against Petitioners /Respondents is contradicting to each other.
6. It is submitted that even as per the allegations of the complaint the
Petitioners/Respondent R-4, R-5 & R-7 has nothing do with the alleged offence. Further,
there is no whisper about any of the petitioner’s involvement the entire sequence of
events. Further the entire allegation leveled doesn’t disclose any offence as alleged
against the Petitioner/s Respondent R-4, R-5 & R-7 herein. The present complaint is filed
with malafide intentions and harass the Petitioner /Respondent R-4 who is the eldest
Sister Petitioner/s Respondent of R-1, R-5 the second Eldest sister of Petitioner
/Respondent R-1 and whereas Petitioner /Respondent R-7 is brother in law of Petitioner
/Respondent R-1 and the Husband of Petitioner /Respondent R-4 in the aforesaid DVC
443 of 2022 .The facts stated in the compliant would clearly go to show that the
Respondent/Aggrieved Person trying to make false claims against the Petitioner
/Respondent R-4, R-5 & R-7 and drag the family members of Petitioner /Respondent R-1
and harass them to settle her personal score against the Petitioner /Respondent R-1.
7. It is submitted by the Petitioner /Respondent R-4 & R-7 who are both husband and wife
don’t share any shared household with Respondent/Aggrieved Person at any given point.
8. It is submitted by the Petitioner /Respondent R-5 that she has only visited her Parent
house only but she never shared a shared household with Respondent/Aggrieved Person
at any given point and she live in Karimnagar District with her husband.
9. It is submitted by the Petitioners /Respondents that nowhere does this allegation disclose
any offence attracting the provisions of the Protection of women form Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 as alleged on Petitioners /Respondents R-4, R-5 & R-7.

50
 10. It is submitted by the Petitioners /Respondents that at every given instance the
Respondent/Aggrieved Person has changed her statements and given instances as stated
follows
a. In FIR 230 of 2022 dated 26-08-2022 women Police Station south Zone
Charminar, where she alleged in her original Complaint to SHO dated 26-08-2022
that her husband has left her at parent house in 2nd week January 2021 and
further alleged the Additional dowry of Rs: 50, 00,000/- was demanded since the
Respondent and his Parents were not Satisfied with dowry given at time of
marriage and her husband is trying flee out of the Country
b. In WP. No 38804 of 2022 filed on 17-10-2022 before Hon’ble High Court for the
state of Telangana the Respondent/Aggrieved Person has stated that her Husband
is in illegal custody of women Police Station south Zone Charminar and
Petitioner/ Respondent R-1 Parents.
c. In DVC 443 of 2022 filed on 31-12-2022 before the Hon’ble III Metropolitan
Magistrate Court at Hyderabad the Respondent/Aggrieved Person has alleged the
Petitioner/ Respondent R-1 her husband had left her on 30-12-2020 at her parents’
house at Hyderabad and one day before that is 29-12-2020 her husband has raised
his hand in the Company of the Respondent No.-2-7 ( In DVC 443 of 2022 ) and
the quarrel is related to bring the additional dowry to perform the marriage of
husband younger sister .

PRAYER
Hence, in view of afore stated legal grounds which are supported by facts and circumstances,
culled entirely from documents submitted and relied on by Respondent/Aggrieved Person itself
in the instant case, it is crystal clear that there is no prima facie case made out, attracting said
sections of Protection of women form Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and as such, it is most
respectfully prayed to this Hon’ble Court that
1. The false petition/complaint of the Respondent/Aggrieved Person may kindly be rejected
in its entirety and all the Petitioner /Respondent R-4, R-5 & R-7 be discharged from this
false litigation implicating them .

51
 2. Heavy exemplary costs be imposed on the Respondent/Aggrieved Person for misusing
the law and making false allegations against The Petitioner/s Respondent R-4, R-5 &
R-7.
3. Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit having regard to facts and circumstances
of the case.

Place: HYDERABAD
Date: 29-03-2023 Counsel for Petitioner /Respondent R-4, R-5 & R-7

52
 Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition,
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL COURT
AT CHENNAI
M.A.T.C.O.P No. of 2024

Mr. Muruganantham, (Male / Aged 30 years)

S/o. Mr. Muthusamy,
No. 59, Ambedkar Street, Rayampuram, Sendurai TK,
Ariyalur DT - 621718 … Petitioner

-Vs-

1. Mr. Saravanan, (Male / Aged 47)

S/o. Mr. Nalla Thambi,
3/148, Middle Street, Siruvachur,
Perambalur DT - 621113

2. Sri Ramajayam Contractor,

S/o. Prop Sudha Sengamalai,
JJ Nagar, Kurumbanchavadi,
Ariyalur – 621705

3. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Limited,

ATP Towers, No. 12-A, 5th Floor,
Bye Pass Road, C-5 Madurai,
Madurai – 625010 … Respondent

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 144 AND 166 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,
1989 AND RULE 3 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL RULES
The Petitioner above named humbly submits as follows;-

1. I, Mr. Muruganantham, S/o. Mr. Muthusamy, aged about 30 years is residing at Ambedkar
Nagar, Raayampuram, Senthurai Taluk, Ariyalur DT.
The address for the service of the Petitioner is that of his counsel M/s. G.M.Gokul Ram &
C.Jaya Priya Advocates, having registered office address at old No. 103, 2nd Floor, Nizar Law
chambers, I-Z cabin, Armenian Street, Chennai-600001 Ph.8681819291.
2. I am still a bachelor taking care of my family with an unmarried sister for the past twelve
years after the demise of my father Mr. Muthusamy. Being the only breadwinner, I earn our

53
 of my only occupation as a Driver in a Private Company in Chennai, which serves to be the
only and primary source of income.
3. The Respondent is Mr. Saravanan, S/o. Mr. Nalla Thambi, aged about 47 years is residing at
3/148, Middle Street, Siruvachur, Perambalur DT.
4. The Petitioner hereby applies for compensation for the injuries sustained in a road accident
on 26.06.2023, at 8.25 pm in Kollapuram Main Road (Bypass). The incident occurred while
the Petitioner was returning back home after completing his personal work at Ariyalur, he
was driving his SPLENDER PLUS registered as TN 13 S 9695 from South to North direction
opposite to the MTC Milakai Mandi. At the instance, the Respondent was driving his
concrete mixer TM lorry numbered TN 12 AH 0005 with high speed and negligence from
North to South direction opposing the Petitioner and made an accident by dashing against his
two wheeler, as a consequence of which the said Petitioner in a staggered position fell down,
resulting in the fracture of bones in his right leg below his knee and abrasion wounds in his
left hand and leg respectively.

NECESSARY PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF INJURED AND VEHICLE GIVEN

BELOW

S.No Requirements Particulars

1) Name and the father’s Name Mr. Muruganantham, S/o. Mr. Muthusamy

2) Full Address of the of the person Ambedkar Street, Raayampuram, Sendurai TK,
injured Ariyalur DT

3) Age of the person injured 30 Years

4) Occupation of the person injured Driver in a Private Company in Chennai

5) Name and Address of the

Employer of the person injured
person

6) Monthly income of the person

injured

7) Does the injured, in respect of

whom Compensation is claimed
pay Income Tax

54
8) Place, date and time of the At Kollapuram Main Road (Bypass), on 26.06.2023
accident. by 8.25 pm

9) Name and address of the Police The Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station,
Station in whose jurisdiction of Ariyalur Police District.
the accident took place Crime No. 186 of 2023.

10) Whether the person in respect of The Petitioner has sustained injuries due to the
whom Compensation is claimed Respondent who was driving his concrete mixer TM
traveling Vehicle involved in the lorry numbered TN 12 AH 0005 with high speed
accident and negligence from North to South direction
opposing the Petitioner and made an accident by
dashing against his two wheeler.
11) Name of the injuries sustained The Petitioner sustained the injuries of fracture in
right leg below the knee and abrasion wounds in his
left hand and leg respectively.
12) Name and address of the Assistant Professor of Assessment Clinic,
Medical Practitioner who Government Medical College & Hospital,
attended on the injured took Ariyalur.
place or was registered

13) Period of treatment and Treated as inpatient in the Government Medical

Expenditure if any incurred College & Hospital, Ariyalur from 27.07.2023 to
thereon 8.11.2023.

14) Disability for work Not able to move the right leg completely, unable to
walk.
15) Registration Number and type of TN 12 AH 0005
Vehicle Concrete Mixer TM Lorry

16) Name and address of the owner Sri Ramajayam Contractor,

of the Vehicle S/o. Prop Sudha Sengamalai,
JJ Nagar, Kurumbanchavadi Village,
Ariyalur – 621705.
17) Name and address of the insurer Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Limited,
ATP Towers, No. 12-A, 5th Floor,
Bye Pass Road, C-5 Madurai,
Madurai – 625010
18) Name and address of the driver Mr. Saravanan, (Male / Aged 47)
of the vehicle at the time of S/o. Mr. Nalla Thambi,
accident 3/148, Middle Street, Siruvachur,

Perambalur DT - 621113

55
 19) Has any claim been lodged with
the owner Insurer, if so with
what result

20) Name and the address of the Mr. Muruganantham, (Male / Aged 30 years)
Applicant S/o. Mr. Muthusamy,
No. 59, Ambedkar Street, Rayampuram, Sendurai
TK,
. Ariyalur DT - 621718
21) Nature of the relationship with Not applicable
the deceased

22) Title of the Property of the Not Applicable

deceased

23) Amount of compensation ………………/-

claimed

PART - I

i. Loss of earnings from 22.11.2023 : Rs./- per month

ii. Partial loss of earnings : Nil

iii. Transport to Hospital : Rs.1,00,000/-

iv. Extra nourishment : Rs.2,00,000/-

v Medical Expenditure : Rs.3,00,000/-

vi Future Medical Expenditure : Rs.4,00,000/-

PART – II

vii. Compensation for pain and sufferings : Rs.5,00,000/-

viii. Compensation for continuing and

Permanent Disability if any : Nil
ix. Compensation for severe fracture of bone : Rs.2,00,000/-
x. Compensation for abrasion of left hand : Rs. 10,000/-
xi. Compensation for abrasion of left leg : Rs. 10,000/-

56
 -------------------
Total : Rs./-
-------------------

24. (A). (i). Whether the injured had been involved

in any other Road Accident earlier : No.

25. (A). (ii). Whether the injured had been preferred

a claim from damages in any on vehicle and : No.
if so how

26. (A). (iii). Whether the injured was related to or

has known the owner of the vehicle and if so how : No.

27. Any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of this Claim here furnish
a brief account of how the accident occurred and state how the applicant is entitled to claim
compensation and how the Respondents are liable to any compensation claimed and state how
the Respondents are liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner:
a. That the 2nd Respondent is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. TN 12 AH 005 , the 3rd
Respondent is the Insurance Company of the 2nd Respondent’s vehicle, and the 1st
Respondent is the driver of the vehicle. That when the Petitioner was returning back
home after completing his personal work at Ariyalur, he was driving his SPLENDER
PLUS registered as TN 13 S 9695 from South to North direction opposite to the MTC
Milakai Mandi, the Respondent was driving his concrete mixer TM lorry numbered TN
12 AH 0005 with high speed and negligence from North to South direction opposing the
Petitioner and made an accident by dashing against his two wheeler.
b. As a consequence of which the said Petitioner in a staggered position fell down, resulting
in the fracture of bones in his right leg below his knee and abrasion wounds in his left
hand and leg respectively.
c. That the Petitioner was treated as an inpatient at the Government Medical College &
Hospital, Ariyalur from 27.07.2023 to 8.11.2023.
d. That the Petitioner is employed as a Driver in a Private Company in Chennai, with an
monthly income of Rs……………. /-. Due to the accident, the Petitioner is unable to
continue his job as his right leg is not in condition to be used for driving. The fracture in

57
 the right leg prevents him from accessing the vital operators of the car such as brake,
accelerator and clutch without which driving is not possible and the abrasion in his left
hand and leg causes bodily pain to him resulting in difficulties of performing his daily
routine.
e. The Petitioner submits that since the accident took place because of the rash and
negligent driving of the 1st Respondent, who is the driver of the vehicle, which involved
in the accident, 2nd Respondent is the owner and the 3rd Respondent, who is the insurer of
the said vehicle, all are liable as equally as the other.
f. The Petitioner submits that considering the age of the injured and his income, the
compensation or Rs…………………../- would be just and reasonable. The Petitioner is
not having any other source of income other than this compensation to meet all his
expenses.
g. The Petitioner states that since Hon’ble Tribunal is having Jurisdiction over the case.
The Petitioner is paying the Court fees of Rs……………... under schedule to the Tamil
Nadu Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules.

It is humbly submitted that, this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to permit the Petitioner to pay Court fee for Rs……………../- and dispense with the
Petitioner to pay the court fee for the rest of the amount and thus render Justice. The Petitioner,
therefore, most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass as Order directing
the Respondents jointly and severally to pay the Petitioner the compensation of Rs……………/-
with subsequent interest and direct the Respondents to pay Rs,5,00,000/- as an interim
compensation as no fault liability with cost of the Petition and thereby render justice.

Dated at Chennai on this day of January 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner Petitioner

VERIFICATION

58
 I, Mr. Muruganantham, S/o. Mr. Muthusamy , the
Petitioner herein, declare that the facts and particulars stated above are true and correct to the
best or my knowledge and that I have not claimed or obtained any compensation under the
Workmen’s compensation Act 1923 so far as this case is concerned.
Dated at Chennai this day of January 2024

Petitioner

59
 FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

(UNDER SECTION 154 CR.P.C)

TAMIL NADU POLICE

INTEGRATED INVESTIGATION FORM-1

C 6359262

1. District: Thanjavur
P.S: Sethubavachathiram
Year: 2023
FIR No. 167
Date: 03-11-2023
2. Act (s): Indian Penal Code, 1860, TN Public Property (Prevention of
Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. Sections: 447 (1) 3(1) Concert
3. (a) Occurrence of Offense day: Thursday
Time Period: on
Date from: 26.10.2023
Time from: 15:00
(b) Information received at P.S., date: 3.11.2023 Time: 18:00
(c) General Diary reference: Entry no.(5) Time: 18:00
4. Type of information: Written
5. Place of occurrence:
(a) Direction and Distance from P.S: North and 6.0 K.M.
Beat number: BEAT III
(b)Address: Opposite to Yarelivayal Alaginaayakiyapuram Hospital
(c) In case, Outside limits of this Police Station, then the name of P.S:
District:

60
6. Complainant/Informant:
(a) Name: Vivekanandam
(b)Father's name / Husband's name: Ramadoss
(c) Date/year of birth: 1966.
(d) Nationality: India.
(e) Passport no: Nil Date of issue: Nil Place of issue: Nil
(f) Occupation: Farmer.
(g)Address: 3/22, South Theru, Paravakottai
7. Details of known/suspected / unknown accused with full particulars:
1. Prasanna, S/o. Arunachalam.
2. Arunachalam.
3. Arunachalam's brother.
8. Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant / informant: Done
Inquiry in the neighborhood
9. Particulars of the properties stolen / Involved: Survey No. 52/2 in
Pattukottai Taluk.
10.Total value of properties stolen / involved: 1.5 Lakhs
11.Inquest Report / unnatural death case no. If any: Nil
12.FIR contents:
On 27.10.23 when I, the Sub-Inspector of Sethubavachathiram, Police Station
was on duty, I received a complaint from Mr. Vivekanandam S/o. Mr.
Ramdoss R/o. 3/22 South Street, Paravakottai, who was present at the Police
Station and enquired the matter today on 03.11.23 by Registering the
complaint with no. 117/23. The details. regarding the same is as follows:

From:
R. Vivekanandan 51/17 S/o. Ramdoss
3/22 South Street, Paravakottain,

61
Mannarkudi, Thiruvarur District.
Cell: 9786772712.
Το:

Respected Sub-Inspector,

Sethubavachathiram Police Station.

Sir, I am residing in the above said address with my family presently. I am

taking care of the property at Aandikadu Yarelivayal Alaginaayakiyapuram
belonging to Mr. K. Subramanian who is practicing at Supreme Court at
Delhi as Senior Advocate and who is native of Aandikadu Village, Pattukotal
Taluk. I am managing the house, Land and Coconut grooves of the above said
person. There are coconut groves in 5 acres of land bearing Yarelivayal
village plot no. 15/A, 15/B opposite to Alaginaayakiyapuram Hospital. The
above said property was registered before 12 years with complete right to
possession and peaceful enjoyment. There is a compound wall made of Basalt
stone which is 8 feet Tall and 200 feet long on the front side of the above said
grooves and there is an Iron gate in the middle. In the above said area, since
Mr. Prasanna S/o. Arunachalam had purchased properties on 17.11.2019 in
survey no. 54/2, 49/2A which is a groove without pathway, he has been
creating problems seeking pathway. There is already a complaint against the
above said Mr. Prasanna and the same is pending with regards to breaking
open the iron fence which was made to protect our property on the four sides
and for trespassing to create problems. Inspite of the fact that the complaint
against Prasanna being pending, he has been causing trouble. He has been
stating that he will acquire the pathway. Today on 26.10.2023 at about 3 PM,
when I was going to the groove as usual, I saw that from downwards about 25
feet of the basalt stone compound wall was broken down and a pathway was
created. When I inquired in the neighborhood, I was told that Prasanna and
his father Arunachalam along with Arunachalam's brother brought Machine
to demolish the compound wall made of basalt stone which is worth Rs.1.5

62
 Lakhs and caused damage by trespassing the groove to make pathway. Hence
I kindly request you to take necessary action against the above said persons.
Yours Vivekanandam. 26.10.2023. Sir on inquiring the same by providing
complaint no. 117/23 on 27.10.23, today on 03.11.2023 FIR no. 167/23 has
been registered under section 447 IPC and 3(1) of PPDL Act, at about 19.00
at Setnubavachathiram Police Station. (Sd) Thangavel S.I of Police. 3.11.23
attaching the original with the complaint, it is sent to Hon'ble JM, Pattukotai.

13.Action taken: Since the above report reveals commission of offense (s)
under section as mentioned in item no.2, registered the case and directed Rajinderan
G. Inspector of Police to take up the investigation.
FIR read over to the complainant / informant, admitted to be recorded and a copy
given to the complainant / informant free. of cost.

14.Signature/thumb impression of the complainant / informant.

15. Date and time of dispatch to the court: 3.11.2023

Signature of the officer in-charge, Police Station

Name: Thangavel A.

Rank: Sub-inspector of Police.

No. 2124.

63
 PETITION UNDER 223 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA READ WITH 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT

IN THE COURT OF V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT EGMORE,

CHENNAI
C.C.NO. 859 OF 2024

Mr.M.Zayan,
S/o. Ahamed
No.64/1, Seeyalam I Street,
Villivakkam,
Chennai-600 049 ....Complainant
Vs
Mr.V.Balaraman,
S/o.V.Narayanan,
No.1/8, E.V.R.Street,
G.K.M.Colony,
Chennai-600 089. ...Accused

COMPLAINT FILED FOR AN OFFENSE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE

INSTRUMENT ACT.
(Under Section 223 of B.N.S.S 2024)

The complainant states as follows:

1. The complainant is Mr.M.Zayan, S/o.Ahamed Muslim, aged about 39 years, residing at

No.64/1, Seeyalam I Street, Villivakkam, Chennai- 600 049.
The address for service of all notices and processes on the Complainant is that of his
counsel M/S. S.SUGUMAR &

64
 2. The address for service of all summons, notices and warrants against the Accused is as
stated above.
3. The Complainant states that the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from my
client during the month of August 2011 as hand loan for his urgent family needs and the
interest stipulated being 12% per annum (1% PM) and also agreed to repay the amount
within a month.
4. The Complainant states that despite several demands made by him, the accused were
evading repayment of the said loan and interest. Finally in order to discharge the
liabilities he has issued a cheque bearing No. 175503, dated 02.07.2024 at his bank
Allahabad Bank, V.P.Colony (CBS) Branch, Chennai-23 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and
also he had given an undertaking that he will pay the interest later.
5. Accordingly, as per his request, the complainant has presented the said cheque for
collection on 02.07.2024 in his bank Karnataka Bank Ltd., Triplicane Branch, but the
same was returned and dishonored for the reason "Funds Insufficient" on 04.07.2024.
This was intimated to the complainant by his banker.
6. The complainant states that he has sent Lawyer Notice to the Accused on 23-07-2024 by
speed post, calling upon the Accused to pay the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within
15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The accused has received the notice on
28.07.2024. The accused failed and neglected to come forward to pay the amount and
thereby he has committed an offense U/S 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He has
also not replied to the notice.
7. The complainant states that the above complaint is filed within time and the complainant
residing and the legal notice issued are within the limit of this Honorable Court. Hence
this Honorable Court has jurisdiction to try the case.

The Complainant therefore prays that this Honorable Court may be pleased:

a. 10 to take Complaint on the file of this Honorable Court Under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.

b. to issue Summons to the Accused.

65
 c. to punish the Accused in accordance with law.

d. to award compensation to the Complainant Under Section 357 of CR.P.C and pass
suitable orders in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai this the 10th day of September 2024.

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT COMPLAINANT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED HEREWITH

1. Cheque No. 175503.

2. Return Memo of the Accused Bank
3. The Complainant Lawyer Notice.
4. Proof of service provided in the intimation of Speed post website.

LIST OF WITNESSES :

1. Complainant.
2. Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, V.P.Colony (CBS) Branch, Chennai-23.
3. Bank Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd, Triplicane Branch, Chennai.

CHEQUE AMOUNT: Rs.1,00,000/-

STAMP : Rs. /-

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT COMPLAINANT

66
 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

MEMORANDUM OF CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CMP.No. of 2024
In
C.R.P. No: of 2024

Sandeep Kumar Sahoo, (Aged 37 years)

S/o. Ajaya Kumar Sahoo,
Previously residing at,
Lifestyle No.205, Happinest Apartment,
Lifestyle Building, Thirukatchur Village,
Singaperumal Koil, Chengalpattu – 603 204

Permanently residing at,

Plot No.1245, Mahanadi Vihar,
PO-Nayabazar, P.S – Chauliaganj,
Cuttack District - 753004 ...Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs
Soumya Prava Pal, (Aged 34 years),
W/o. Sandeep Kumar Sahoo,
Flat No.E, 17th Floor, Block – Topaz,
Olympia Opaline Sequel, Phase – II, OMR Road,
Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Navalur Village,
Chegalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram – 600130 ...Respondent/Respondent

67
 STAY PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC
For the reasons stated the accompanying affidavit it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court
may be pleased to stay all the proceedings in respect of the impugned Judgment dated
12.10.2023 in CRL.A.No. 2/2022 on the file of the Learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu confirming the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpattu in
Crl.M.P. No. 2301/2020 in D.V.C.No. 8/2019 and to set aside the same and
thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this day of July, 2024

Counsel for Petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant

68