IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANGALORE

O.S. NO. 3875/2025

Between

Mr. Rajesh Sharma,

Manager of Restaurant Quick Crave,

5th Floor, 8th Cross Laxmi Rd,

Bangiyappa Garden, Shanthi Pura,

Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560027 PETITIONER

//VS//

And

Ms. Priya Verma,

Owner of Durian Furniture,

Durian House 6, Regenta Place,

Venkataswamy Naidu Rd,

next to Ramada Hotel, Shivaji Nagar,

Bengaluru, Karnataka 560051

RESPONDENT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER VIII

RULE I OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF 1908

The above Defendant most humbly submits as follows:-

1. The address of the Respondent for the purpose of Court notices and summons from the
Hon’ble Court as shown in the cause title above and also that of their Advocates.
2. The suit of the Plaintiff is for a judgement and decree for direction to the Defendant to
pay a sum of ₹2,00,000 as compensation for the breach of contract along with the
recovery of ₹4,00,000 paid as an advance and costs of litigation.
3. The Respondent submits the written statement in response to the plaint filed by the
Petitioner and denies the claims made against him in the plaint except the ones
specifically admitted.
4. The Petitioner has filed this suit and sought for the above-stated prayer by misleading this
Hon’ble Court. The plaint is not maintainable as the Petitioner has concealed material
fact and has not come before the Hon’ble Court with clean hands in an attempt to get the
relief from the Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner by means of deception sought to
misrepresent the true state of facts and circumstances to sustain this suit before this
Hon’ble Court and thus the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought.
5. The Respondent admits that an agreement for the order of 500 custom-designed was
made on 15th March for the opening day the Plaintiff’s new restaurant and was agreed
upon certain terms and conditions. However, the interpretation of these terms are not
entirely true.
6. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Respondent submits with particular reference to
the various allegations made in the Plaint is transversed as under.
7. The Petitioner, Rajeesh Sharma, is the manager of “Quick Crave”, a newly established
restaurant opened by him. It has speciality in gourmet cuisines and has the biggest desire
 to make it reach the topmost position. For this he is determined to enrich the experience
of its customers by giving a unique ambience to the restaurant.
8. The Respondent, Ms. Priya Verma is the owner of “Durian Furniture”, a well established
company engaged in manufacturing high quality furniture. Her company has a been in the
market for over a decade and has a huge reputation for delivering customised products for
a variety of clients.
9. As part of his efforts to furnish and decorate the restaurant, Mr Rajesh was in the search
of custom designed furniture and this is when he came across an advertisement that
featured Ms. Verma’s business. He went to the showroom and was impressed by the
quality of chairs were there on display and the prices were also reasonable which led to
an agreement between the two.
10. The Respondent admits that a contract was made on 15th March,2023 between both the
parties for the supply of 500 custom designed chairs and as per the terms of agreement,
the Petitioner made an advance payment of Rs. 4,00,000 on the same date and a balance
payment of Rs.6,00,000 was to be paid on the day of delivery of chairs.
11. The Respondent submits that, as to paragraph 3 of the plaint, the Respondent admits that
the chairs were to be delivered by 30th June 2023, but denies that the delay in delivery
was intentional or amounted to a breach of the contract. The Respondent submits that
even after putting her best efforts, the failure to deliver the chairs were beyond her
control due to unforeseen famines and other natural calamities because of which
transportation was a huge challenge and all this led to a delay in completing the order.
The Petitioner was always kept in touch regarding the delivery and the Respondent tried
his best to deliver the chairs as soon as possible. As per section 56 of the Indian Contract
Act 1872, the Respondent could be excused since the performance of the contract had
become impossible to fulfil.
12. It is submitted that as per paragraph 4 of the plaint, the Respondent admits that 200 chairs
were delivered on 10th July 2023. However, it is truly wrong that there was any defect in
the chairs delivered and were as per the requirements of the Petitioner. Further, the
Petitioner failed to submit any evidence to prove against it.
13. The Respondent submits that, the remaining 300 chairs were in proper state and could
have been delivered easily if the Petitioner had not refused to accept them which further
made it difficult to fulfil the contract. The Respondent further states that the Petitioner’s
act of terminating the contract prematurely unjustifiably constitutes anticipatory breach of
contract as per section 73 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 as a result of which the
Respondent could not fulfil her obligations.
14. The Respondent further submits that, she is not liable to refund the advance payment or
pay a compensation as there was no breach of contract on her part and delayed delivery
of chairs were because of unforeseen circumstances.

WHEREFORE, the Respondent prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss
the above suit filed by the Petitioner with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and
equity.

Advocate for Respondent Respondent

 VERIFICATION
I, Rishabh Reshamiya, am authorized representative for the Respondent, in the above
mentioned Written Statement and state that this is my true name, designation and
signature and what is stated above is true and correct to the best of knowledge,
information and belief.

Bangalore
25.1.25
Deponent

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Rishabh Reshamiya, S/o Prithvi Reshamiya, aged about 35 years, residing at Hans
Complex, 8/A, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Manuvana, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I am the Representative of the Respondent, Priya Verma. I am well acquainted with

the facts and circumstances of the case and I am filing the Written Statement on
behalf of the Respondent.
2. The averments made in paragraphs 1 to 14 of the accompanying Writtten Statement
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Bangalore, Deponent

Date: 25.1.25

Identified by me

Sworn to before me

Advocate