IN THE COURT OF SH.

DEV SAROHA, CJ-06 (CENTRAL),

TIS HAZARI COURTS
CS DJ 2763/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
RANJEET AND ANR. …PLAINTIFF
V/S
SUBHRA KABASI AND ORS. …DEFENDANTS
INDEX
SL.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1
R/W 151 CPC FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE WRITTEN STATEMENT BEYOND
90 DAYS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.
1 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT
2. ANNEXURE A-1. COPY OF TRAIN TICKET
3. WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANT NO. 1 ALONG WITH
AFFIDAVIT
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS
5. VAKALATNAMA

DELHI
DATED: DEFENDANT NO. 1
THROUGH
COUNSEL
 IN THE COURT OF SH. DEV SAROHA, CJ-06 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS
CS DJ 2763/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
RANJEET AND ANR. …PLAINTIFF
V/S
SUBHRA KABASI AND ORS. …DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 R/W 151 CPC FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE WRITTEN STATEMENT
BEYOND 90 DAYS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. That the abovementioned matter is pending for the purpose
fixed on 06.03.2024.
2. That it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiffs had
deliberately effected no proper service upon the defendants
and only substituted service was done through a least
circulated newspaper publication called “Veer Arjun”. That
when the defendants came to know about the pending matter
through e courts app they engaged one L.A.C. namely Mr.
V.M. Kannan to appear on their behalf and the same L.A.C.
made his appearance in the matter on 06.03.2023 but he did
not take any steps to file the WS even after repeated requests
of the defendants.
3. That on the next date of hearing i.e., 14.09.2023, the
defendants were in train journey to Nashik for some urgent
work. That the defendant tried to join through VC but could
not do so due to network issues. By an order dated
 14.09.2023, the opportunity to file WS on behalf of defendant
no. 1 was closed by this court. The copy of the ticket is
annexed as ANNEXURE A-1. That again on the next date of
hearing i.e., on 18.01.2024, the defendants could not file the
WS as she was very busy in appeal proceedings to a
connected matter pending before this Hon’ble Court titled
“Ranjeet v. Subhra Kabasi” EX/470/2020 before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi and hence the
present application.
4. That the reason mentioned above are bonafide and true. That
the defendant no. 1 will suffer irreparable loss and injury if
the present application is not allowed.

PRAYER
In the light of the abovementioned reasons, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly allow
the application of Defendant no. 1 under Order VIII R 1 r/w
151 CPC for extension of time to file the WS beyond 90 days
in the interest of justice.
Any other and/or further relief to which the answering
defendant may be found entitled also be granted in favour of
the answering defendants and against the plaintiffs.

DELHI
DATED: DEFENDANT NO. 1
THROUGH
COUNSEL
 IN THE COURT OF SH. DEV SAROHA, CJ-06 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS
CS DJ 2763/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
RANJEET AND ANR. …PLAINTIFF
V/S
SUBHRA KABASI AND ORS. …DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Subhra Kabasi W/o Sh. Manoranjan Kabasi R/o HN27, Khyber Pass,
Civil Lines, Delhi -110054, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1. I am the plaintiff in the abovementioned matter and as such well
conversant with facts and circumstances of the case, hence
competent to sign and verify the present affidavit.
2. I have carefully read and understood contents of the
accompanying application and the same has been drafted by my
counsel. I have read and understood the contents thereof and the
same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
information.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this_____ day of March, 2024 that contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and no
part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF SH. DEV SAROHA, CJ-06 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS
CS DJ 2763/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
RANJEET AND ANR. …PLAINTIFF
V/S
SUBHRA KABASI AND ORS. …DEFENDANTS
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
1. That the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the eyes
of law as plaintiffs have not approached the Hon’ble Court
with clean hands and has concealed material facts from this
Hon’ble Court. The issue of fact and law is whether the
plaintiffs are the owner or co-owner of the suit property i.e.,
House No. 27, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi – 110054. It is
pertinent to mention here that as per documents provided by
the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the land pertains
to Government and comes under Re-development of Khyber
Pass area which is to be re-developed by DDA as per Govt.
Policy and further the plaintiffs are the
encroachers/unauthorized occupants of the suit property in
question. The copy of the reply letter by the Ministry is
annexed as ANNEXURE A-1. The plaintiffs are seeking
declaration and other consequential relief of the suit property
without impleading the Union of India as a party and the
present suit is not maintainable and barred by law under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. It is well settled that if the person
 does not approach the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and
has concealed the material facts from the Hon’ble Court, the
suit is liable to be dismissed on this very ground alone. Also,
the suit is liable to be dismissed for becoming infructuous on
the very grounds of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in M.A. Dairy No. 7241 of 2024 in SLP(C) 26865 of 2023
wherein extension of time for vacating the first floor of the
suit property is granted to the defendant no. 1.
2. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed as per the
provision 1 (a) and (b) laid down in Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
It is pertinent to mention here that there is no cause of action
against the answering defendants as the present suit is being
filed with malafide intention to grab the Government Land
and the plaintiffs are nothing but only the encroachers upon
the suit property. Hence the suit for declaration, cancellation
and permanent injunction is liable to be dismissed. Further,
the plaintiffs have not paid court fees as they are not in
possession of the suit property. Hence in the absence of court
fees, the present suit is not maintainable.
3. That the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit
against the answering defendant as the plaintiffs are neither
the owner nor in possession of the suit property and the
present suit us being filed to grab the Government land and
wants to declare themselves to be owner of the suit property.
Also, the plaintiffs have filed multiple civil litigations against
the defendants for possession of the suit property under the
capacity of landlord which is pending before the Hon’ble
Court. The plaintiffs have intentionally not made the Ministry
 of Housing and Urban Affairs as necessary party and without
being the necessary party, the present suit is being
infructuous.
4. That the present suit of the plaintiffs is even otherwise devoid
of merits and is without any jurisdiction, malafide, vexatious
and highlights the misdeeds of the plaintiffs as the relief
against the answering defendant is not clarified. It is not
clarified how the suit for declaration, cancellation and
permanent injunction is maintainable when the plaintiffs are
seeking possession of the suit property as landlord in
execution in the matter titled “Ranjeet v. Subhra Kabasi”
EX/470/2020 and also seeking declaration of the suit
property as absolute owner in the present matter. The
plaintiffs are the encroachers on the government land hence
the plaintiffs have no rights to seek declaration of the suit
property against the defendants without impleading Ministry
of Housing Affairs as a necessary party.
5. That the claim set up in the present suit is opposed to law
and is contrary to the facts and material on record. The
plaintiffs are guilty of suggestion-false and suppression-very
and due to malicious conduct of the plaintiffs does not
deserve any relief founded upon equity. Hence, plaintiffs are
not entitled to any relief and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground
that the plaintiffs are not in possession and have not filed any
ownership registered title deeds executed in their favour for
seeking declaration of the suit property and hence the suit is
not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is pertinent to
 mention that the plaintiffs are the encroachers and necessary
legal action shall be taken to impound false and fabricated
title documents if any, existing in their favour.
7. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed as per the
provisions Under Order VI Rule 2 (no material facts against
the answering defendants, and Order VII Rule 2 (no proper
court fee has been assessed and annexed according to the
market value of the suit property) and no site plan to give
proper description of the suit property under CPC. Hence the
present liable to be dismissed as per law.

Reply on Merits:
1. That the contents of para no. 1, 2, and 3 of the plaint are
wrong and vehemently denied in toto. It is vehemently denied
that the plaintiffs are law abiding citizen and residing at HN
27, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi – 110054. It is vehemently
denied that the plaintiffs are absolute owner of the property
bearing no. 27, Khybar Pass Silk Mills Quarters, Khybar
Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi – 110054, constructed upto ground
floor and first floor and also the site plan is wrong is
vehemently denied in toto. It is vehemently denied that the
defendant no. 1 is encroacher, illegal occupier and trespasser
of the suit property. It is vehemently denied that the
defendant no. 1 had sent any legal notices to the plaintiffs
and the plaintiffs have cancelled the tenancy by their reply.
It is submitted that the plaintiffs are neither owner nor
landlord of the suit property and they are
encroachers/unlawful trespassers of the Government land. It
 is further submitted that as per aforesaid facts and
documents on record, there is no relationship of landlord and
tenancy as the encroacher/trespasser cannot be
landlord/owner of the Government land. It is further
submitted that the plaintiff no. 1 had filed the suit for
possession of the first floor of the property in case no.
1508/2018 in title Ranjeet v. Subhra Kabasi and concealed
the material facts and documents before this court. It is
submitted that the contents of aforesaid replies and
preliminary objections be read as part hereof and explained
as the same have not been repeated herein for the sake of
brevity.
2. That the contents of para 4,5, and 6 of the plaint are admitted
to the extent which is a matter of record. It is denied that after
passing of the decree dated 14.08.2019 the answering
defendant with the help of family members had broken the
lock of the ground floor of the suit property and the articles
of the plaintiffs were stolen. It is denied that decree dated
14.08.2019 was ever passed. It is denied that answering
defendant taken the forceful, illegal possession of the suit
property without the knowledge, consent, and permission of
the plaintiffs. It is vehemently denied in toto that the
defendant no. 1 had admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs.
It is vehemently denied that the defendants with connivance
and conspiracy with each other have prepared forged and
fabricated documents in respect of the property. It is
submitted that the defendants have clearly stated in her
written statement that the plaintiffs are the encroachers and
the land upon which the suit property is situated is a
custodian property of Ministry of Defence. It is further
submitted that since 2015 the possession of the ground floor
of the property has been with the defendant no. 1 and no
articles of the plaintiffs were ever lying in the ground floor of
the property as falsely stated in the plaint. That the defendant
no. 1 had lodged one FIR No. 188/2019 against the plaintiffs
which is pending for trial. It is further submitted that the Ld.
Civil Court did not appreciate the determination of admission
of fact and law as fact in issue as well as the impugned
judgement and decree 14.08.2019 is per-incuriam as the
interpretation of precedent laws/authoritative
pronouncements have not been considered well. The issue of
fact and law is whether the respondent is the owner or co-
owner of the suit property i.e., HN-27, 1st Floor Khyber Pass,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, it is pertinent to mention that as
per the submission of the defendant no. 1 and documents on
record, the suit property pertains to Government Land. Hence
without going into the issue of relationship of landlord and
tenant, the Ld. Trial court firstly decided the legal issue
(maintainability of the suit) under Order X of the CPC and
further if it requires then matter may be proceeded further
for trial. The aforesaid issue has been clarified by way of
averments and submissions along with record raised in the
Written Statement. The foremost question is well interpreted
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri
Kumar’s judgement as well as S.M. Arif v. Virender Kumar
Bajaj has clarified the admission is discretionary and cannot
 be claimed as a matter of right. The said power should be only
exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of
facts and documents are on record, otherwise the court can
refuse to invoke it”. It is submitted that the contents of
aforesaid replies and preliminary objections be read as part
hereof and explained as the same have not been repeated
herein for the sake of brevity.
3. That the contents of para no. 7,8,9,10,11,12, and 13 of the
plaint are matter of record. It is vehemently denied in toto
that the answering defendants have prepared forged and
fabricated documents in respect of the suit property. It is
vehemently denied that the defendant no. 1 with the
connivance of other defendants had illegally after breaking of
the lock of the ground floor of the suit property had taken
illegal possession of the ground floor and stealing the
articles/goods (fridge, sofa, T.V., fan, etc. of the plaintiffs,
which were lying there. It is submitted that since 2015 the
possession of the ground floor of the property has been with
the defendant no. 1 and no articles of the plaintiffs were ever
lying in the ground floor of the property as falsely stated in
the plaint. That the defendant no. 1 had lodged one FIR No.
188/2019 against the plaintiffs which is pending for trial. It
is vehemently denied in toto that the defendant no. 1 had
admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that
the defendants have clearly stated in her written statement
that the plaintiffs are the encroachers and the land upon
which the suit property is situated is a custodian property of
Ministry of Defence. It is vehemently denied that the
 defendants with connivance and conspiracy with each other
have prepared forged and fabricated documents in respect of
the property. It is vehemently denied that the suit is of urgent
nature and it does not require notice u/s 80(2) CPC which is
mandatory in nature. It is again submitted that the plaintiffs
are the encroachers/unauthorized occupants of the suit
property. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have no
right whatsoever against the defendants to seek declaration
of the suit property and other consequential relief related to
it being an encroacher/unauthorized occupants of the suit
property which pertains to the government of India without
impleading the Union of India as a necessary party. The
plaintiffs have annexed no registered valid documents
executed in their favour with the plaint which is mandatory
as per law and therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled to file
suit for declaration, cancellation and permanent injunction
against the defendants. Hence, the suit is liable to be
dismissed in toto.
4. That the contents of para no. 14 and 15 of the plaint are
wrong and vehemently denied in toto. It is vehemently denied
in toto that the plaintiffs have no other efficacious remedy
except to file the present suit before this Hon’ble Court. It is
vehemently denied in toto that there is any cause of action
arise against the answering defendant. It is submitted that
the contents of aforesaid replies and preliminary objections
be read as part hereof and explained as the same have not
been repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
5. The contents of para no. 16 and 17 of the plaint are wrong
and vehemently denied in toto. It is submitted that no proper
court feed have been affixed as per the market value of the
suit property and further there is dispute over the ownership
of the of the suit property as land in question pertains to the
Government of India and therefore this Court has no
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The
plaintiffs claim to be the owner of the suit property without
impleading Union of India as a necessary party and hence the
suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. Prayer para of the plaint is false, frivolous and vague and is
not tenable in the eyes of law against the answering
defendants. The suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed
being not maintainable against the answering defendants
and the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relies or for the relief
prayed in the suit against the answering defendants.

PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the suit of the
plaintiffs may kindly be dismissed against the answering
defendant with heavy cost, in the interest of justice.

Any other and/or further relief to which the answering

defendant may be found entitled also be granted in favour of
the answering defendants and against the plaintiffs.

DELHI
DATED: DEFENDANT NO. 1
Verification:
Verified at Delhi on this _4th__day of __March__2024, that
the contents of paras of preliminary objections and those
paras of reply on merits are true and correct to my knowledge
as per information received from the available records and
are believed to be correct. Last para is reply to the prayer
clause and prayer made before this Hon’ble Court.

Counsel for Defendant no. 1

 IN THE COURT OF SH. DEV SAROHA, CJ-06 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS
CS DJ 2763/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
RANJEET AND ANR. …PLAINTIFF
V/S
SUBHRA KABASI AND ORS. …DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Subhra Kabasi W/o Sh. Manoranjan Kabasi R/o HN27, Khyber Pass,
Civil Lines, Delhi -110054, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1. I am the plaintiff in the abovementioned matter and as such well
conversant with facts and circumstances of the case, hence
competent to sign and verify the present affidavit.
2. I have carefully read and understood contents of the
accompanying written statement to suit for declaration,
cancellation and permanent injunction and the same has been
drafted by my counsel. I have read and understood the contents
thereof and the same are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and information.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this_____ day of March, 2024 that contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and no
part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT