BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OFLD.

SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAKET DISTRICT COURT, SOUTH EAST,
DELHI
CS/SCJ NO. 248 OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SUNIL VISHNU NARKHEDE
PROPRIETOR OF M/S RAJALAXMI PAINT
HOUSE AND TRADING
...DEFENDANT

INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE
NO.
1. APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9
RULE 13 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR SETTING
ASIDE OF EXPARTE ORDER AND
READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE
J -l
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT IN
SUPPORT
2. WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON
BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT g.-it
ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT IN
SUPPORT
3. LIST OF DOCUMENTS
ALONGWITH DOCUMENTS IN 21-3}
SUPPORT
4. CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 63
OF BHARATIYA SAKHSYA ;2- ?J5
ADHINIYA,2023 ON BEHALF OF
✓

- THE DEFENDANT
5. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5
OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 '¼ / t\.\
FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN
FILING WRITTEN STATEMENT
 ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT IN
SUPPORT
6. APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER 7
RULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
L\ v��
SEEKING REJECTION OF THE
PLAINT ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT
IN SUPPORT

THROUGH

SATYARAKSHA AD
--\._

Coun �or �°'

'\,�
The Defendant
Office: 33, Hemkunt Colony,
Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi- 110048,
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: +9199899966225
+911135634408

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: [0 .02.2025
 CD
IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAKET DISTRICT COURT, DELHI

CS/SCJ NO. ,2_� �OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
...PLAINTIFF /
RESPONDENT

VERSUS

SUNIL VISHNU NARKHEDE

PROPRIETOR OF MIS RAJALAXMI PAINT
HOUSE AND TRADING
...DEFENDANT
APPLICANT

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13 OF CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908 FOR SETTING ASIDE OF
EXPARTE ORDER AND READ WITH SECTION 151 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908.

MOST RESPECTFULY SHOWETH:

1. That the Applicant, namely Sunil Vishnu Narkhede is the

Proprietor of the Firm, namely, M/s Rajlaxmi Paint House
& Trading, having its registered office at Shop No.3,
Laxmi Complex, Raver Road, Savda, Jalgaon,
Maharashtra and is the responsible person for carrying out
the business and day to day functioning of his firm.

2. That the present Suit is filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent,

seeking the recovery of money from the Defendant for an
amount of Rs. 1,03,312.13/- (Rupees One Lakh Three
 Thousand Three Hundred Twelve and Thirteen paise only)
alongwith interest inter-alia, pre-lit, pendent-lite and
future interest @18% per annum.

3. That on 23rd January 2025 in the present suit an ex parte

order was passed by this Hon'ble Court due to the non­
appearance of the Defendant.

4. That the Applicant is filing this application under Order 9

Rule 13 CPC to seek the setting aside of the ex parte order
passed against him on 23.01.2025. As per the order dated
23.01.2025.

Perusal of record reveals that appearance had been

entered into on behalf of defendant on 25.09.2024,
however, no WS has been filed till date nor anyone
appeared on behalf of the defendant after the aforesaid
date. In view thereof, this court is not inclined to grant
fitrther opportunity to defendant to enter an appearance.
Accordingly, defendant is being proceeded against ex
parte. Put up for ex parte PE on 28.02.2025.

5. The Applicant faced unavoidable delays in preparing the

written statement and compiling the necessary documents
in response to the Plaintiffs claim as the Applicant has
limited technical skills regarding use of email and
WhatsApp to provide the document to the counsel and the
applicant is in Mumbai. The preparation of the documents
took more time than anticipated due to the complexity and
 0
volume of materials involved. The delay was not
intentional and was purely inadvertent.

6. That on the last day of hearing the Defendant's main

counsel, handling the matter was unable to attend to the
proceedings and file the necessary documents on time due
to a sudden and severe illness of his father, who had to be
hospitalized and still being treated in hospital as on date.

7. That the cause of delay in filing the written statement and

non-appearance on the last date of hearing was purely
inadvertent, and the Applicant had no intention to delay or
obstruct the course of justice in any manner whatsoever.

8. That the balance of convenience lies entirely "1ith the

Applicant for the following reasons:
a) That the Respondent in its. suit has suppressed
material information failed to disclosed pertinent
communication details whereby the Applicant had
raised an issue with the quality of the product. The
same is part of the Written statement of the Applicant
due to this reason alone the balance of convenience
lies entirely with the Applicant.
b) The Plaintiff has not suffered irreparable harm due to
the delay in filing the written statement, as the matter
is still at an early stage, and allowing this application
will not prejudice the Plaintiffs rights in any way. On
the other hand, dismissal of the present application
would cause irreparable harm and grave injustice to
 the Applicant by depriving him of the opportunity to
defend his case.
c) The Applicant has a valid and arguable defence in the
matter, and the interest of justice demands that both
parties be allowed to present their case on merits.
Dismissal of the present application to set aside the
ex parte order would amount to shutting the doors of
justice on the Defendant, which would not be in
consonance with the principles of equity and fair
play.
d) The Applicant is facing substantial financial hardship
and requires an opportunity to present his defence to
avoid an adverse decision being passed against him.

9. That the Applicant undertakes to attend the further

hearings of this case and participate actively in the
proceedings, and assures the Hon'ble Court that no further
delays will occur in the future.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that in view of the

above said circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to:
0

A. Set aside the ex parte order passed on 25.01.2025 in

this case and allow the Applicant to be part of the
proceedings;
B. Pass such order or further order(s) as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
 THROUGH

SATYARAKSHA ADVO

Couns
Office: 33, Hemkunt Colony,
Greater Kailash- I, New Delhi- 110048
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: +9199899966225
+911135634408

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: f 3 .02.2025

f( . • ,·• 1ll•
<
·r,11i C>rx}a_;� rtl�il1.d:�
ijh1t1$4/'-tl:1�.(Hst�J:siq.{tl}�
 IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAKET DISTRICT COURT, DELHI
CS/SCJ NO. 1'-1 � OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SUNIL VISHNU NARKHEDE
PROPRIETOR OF MIS RAJALAXMI PAINT
HOUSE AND TRADING
. . . DEFENDANT

AFFIDAIVT
I, Sunil Vishnu Narkhede, aged about 43 years, Proprietor of the

Defendant Company, having its registered office at Shop No.3,

Laxmi Complex, Raver Road, Savda, Jalgaon, Maharashtra the

deponent does hereby solemnly affinn and declare as under:

1. That I am the Authorized Representative of the Defendant

Company and I am well conversant with the facts and

circumstances of the present case as such I am also fully

competent to swear and affirm the present affidavit.

.-:�""!?, 2. That I have read the Application under order 9 rule 13 of

.,,,.

code of civil procedure,1908 for_ setting aside of exparte •

�": • ••
. �,::i;'.);::\.
order and read with section.. 151 of code of civil
.t��-;
J
• -�D\S\_-\ ,:
i
;:� /,;:i
,\\
\ .:)1
•.V
procedure,1908, the contents -of which are not being

. ".;.
•. >"""- ,.
� ';;
(
 fr)
repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The Application has

been drafted under my instructions.

3. That the contents thereof are believed to be true upon my

knowledge received from the records maintained by the

Defendant Company in the nonnal course of business. The

legal advice received by me is believed by me to be true. I

say that nothing material is concealed therefrom.

VERIFICATION

W
Verified at �� o� this �ay of M · , 2025 that the

contents of the above affidavit are true upon my knowledge and

that nothing material has been concealed there fro

�

t �EPO �ENT.

� ' \\'�t,
. - ,s Signed Before Me·
I Adv. Narcn,Jr,'.i O. Chaudharl
\ .,.. ·.;_·\;,\t, f
\, 1'•./t1/,:.,, 1.:·i•', 1 ic
,- ·•'· ,( I

iak Bhavtil1, k::e:( Bnlaji Mandir,

·., \.. '1 •

' ''\;'e.,.,.,,_,,.,.,,_,.,.,»"·'• �
- ••';•"
Bhue�wal, Dist. Jalgoan
�':!.�
R. No. 4715
 IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAKET DISTRICT COURT, DELHI
CS/SCJ N0.1½gOF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SUNIL VISHNU NARKHEDE
PROPRIETOR OF M/S RAJALAXMI PAINT
HOUSE AND TRADING
...DEFENDANT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE

DEFENDANT

MOST RESPECTFULY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS OBJECTIONS:

1. That the Defendant, Mr. Sunil Vishnu Narkhede, is the sole

proprietor of MIS Rajalaxmi Paint House Trading, a
business entity known for its established goodwill and
reputable standing in the market.

2. The Defendant denies that he is liable in any manner

whatsoever towards making any payment of the suit amount
claimed by the Plaintiff submits that the amount claimed by
the Plaintiff Rs.1,03,312.13 (Rupees One Lakh Three
Thousand Three Hundred Twelve Rupees and Thirteen
Paise Only) is incorrect, exaggerated. The Plaintiff has
 deliberately suppressed material not provided adequate
documentation or reconciliation to support this amount.

3. The Defendant asserts that a significant portion of the paints

and related goods supplied by the Plaintiff were defective
and of substandard quality. This was immediately
communicated to the Plaintiff, but no remedial action was
..

taken despite repeated verbal and written complaints. The

Plaintiffs action has caused substantial monetary and
mental distress. By failing to provide suitable goods, the
Plaintiff has breached the contract, rendering their claim for
any payment invalid.

4. The Plaintiffs failure to acknowledge the supply of

defective goods, has caused undue delays and disputes. It is
submitted that the Defendant has no fraudulent intent and
has made genuine efforts, but the Plaintiff has been
unreasonable in its demands, refusing to engage in proper
reconciliation.

5. The Plaintiff has acted in bad faith, refusing to address

legitimate concerns about defective products and attempting
to impose undue financial pressure on the Defendant. The
Defendant believes that the Plaintiffs intent in filing this
suit is not to recover legitimate dues but to unjustly enrich
itself by enforcing payment for goods that were not up to
standard. This conduct reflects a dishonest intention on the
Plaintiffs part to misuse the legal process to coerce
payment of an exaggerated and unjustified amount.
 6. The Defendant denies any allegations of fraud or dishonest
intent. The Defendant's actions in the course of business
were transparent and consistent with normal business
practices. The Defendant's attempts to address the defective
products and reconciliation for the matter . through
communication were met with non-cooperation from the
Plaintiff, further complicating the issue. That the plaintiff
deliberately suppressed the material information regarding
the communication that happened between the defendant
and plaintiff regarding the poor quality of goods.

7. The Defendant denies all averments made by the Plaintiff

unless specifically admitted.

PARA WISE REPLY TO THE PLAINT:

1. That the contents of Para 1 and 2, are a matter of record,

hence, require no reply.

2. That the contents of Para 3, are admitted to the extent that

The Defendant does not dispute the Plaintiff's business
standing. However, the Defendant denies any liability for
the amount claimed, and questions the Plaintiff's conduct in
addressing legitimate concerns about the quality of goods
supplied. It is denied that Ms. Radhika Sharma, is the
authorized representative of the Plaintiff's company further
more the board resolution supplied to the defendant is
illegible.

3. That the contents of para 4, are admitted.

4. That the contents of Para 5, are admitted to the extent. The
Defendant admits that goods were supplied by the Plaintiff
and invoices were issued. However, the Defendant strictly
denies the validity of the invoices because they pertain to
goods that were defe.ctive. That it is pertinent to point out
that the Defendant had promptly notified the Plaintiff of the
defective goods upon receipt, but the Plaintiff failed to
rectify or replace them as required under standard business
practice. That the despite the communication initiated by the
defendant but there was no response from the Plaintiff. The
Defendant, therefore, denies the claim that the amounts in
the• invoices is fully payable. That the plaintiff deliberately
suppressed the material information regarding the
communication that happened between the defendant and
plaintiff regarding the substandard, defective, poor quality
of goods.

5. That the contents of Para 5(a), are denied. The Defendant

denies the allegations of deceptive representations and false
assurances made to the Plaintiff. The Defendant conducted
business in good faith, expecting timely redress of
complaints regarding the defective goods. The Defendant's
intentions were not fraudulent, but rather the Defendant
sought clarification and correction from the Plaintiff
regarding the supply issues before making further
payments.

6. That the contents of Para 5(b ), are admitted to the extent.

The Defendant admits that there was a business relationship
with the Plaintiff wherein orders for paints and related
 goods were placed. It is specifically averred that the goods
supplied by the Plaintiff were of substandard quality,
defective, and unfit for the intended purpose. The paints and
related goods provided failed to meet the agreed-upon
specifications and quality standards. The Defendant
repeatedly raised concerns with the Plaintiff regarding the
unusable nature of the goods supplied. The Defendant also
admits that despite several requests and complaints, the
Plaintiff failed to address or rectify these issues
communicated through Telecommunication, Whatsapp
provided in their invoices. As a result of the Plaintiffs
failure to deliver goods of acceptable quality, the Defendant
incurred significant losses and disruption in business
operations as well as loss in reputation.

7. That the content of Para 5(c), are denied. The Defendant

denies the Plaintiffs claim of Rs. 1,03,312.13/- (Rupees
One Lakh Three Thousand Three Hundred Twelve Rupees
and Thirteen Paise Only) as being payable. It is clearly
denied that the alleged amount is neither due nor justified.
The Defendant asserts that this claim is baseless and devoid
of merit. Furthermore, the Defendant reiterates that the
Plaintiff has failed to adequately address the ongoing
disputes concerning the quality and usability of the goods
supplied, which form the foundation of this dispute. Until
such issues are satisfactorily resolved and the Plaintiff
provides credible justification for the claimed amount, the
demand for payment remains unjustified, unsubstantiated,
and is, therefore, vehemently refuted.
8. That the content of Para 5(d), are denied. The Defendant
denies any acknowledgment of the full amount claimed by
the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs failure to honour this
understanding and address the deficiencies in the goods has
led to significant dispute between the parties regarding the
actual amount, if any, that is payable. Consequently, the
Defendant denies the Plaintiffs claim in its entirety and
submits that the alleged amount is unjustified and untenable
in the absence of remedial action by the Plaintiff. The
Defendant further asserts that the unresolved quality issues
and the Plaintiffs non-compliance with their obligations are
the primary cause of the ongoing disagreement, negating
any claim to the amount in question.

9. That the contents of Para 5(e), are denied. The Defendant

denies the assertion that timely payment was an absolute
and unconditional requirement under the terms of the
parties' agreement. The Defendant contends that the
Plaintiffs failure to address the ongoing dispute regarding
the defective supply of goods has rendered the demand for
payment premature and unwarranted. It is emphasized that
the Plaintiffs refusal to resolve the matter in good faith,
despite repeated requests from the Defendant, has
exacerbated the issue. The Defendant has consistently
maintained a willingness to make payments for goods that
conform to the agreed-upon quality and standards.
However, the Defendant is under no obligation to remit
payment for substandard or defective products that fail to
meet contractual expectations. The Defendant respectfully
submits that the Plaintiffs demand for payment without
 addressing these legitimate grievances is unreasonable and
untenable. Until the Plaintiff resolves these disputes and
ensures compliance with the agreed terms, the Defendant
denies any liability for the amount claimed.

10. That the contents of Para 5(f) are denied, The Defendant
denies the Plaintiffs claim and asserts that objections
regarding the quality of the goods supplied were raised on
multiple occasions. These objections were communicated to
the Plaintiff through both verbal discussions and written
correspondence. Despite being duly informed of the
deficiencies, the Plaintiff failed to take any corrective action
to address the issues. The Defendant further disputes the
Plaintiff's assertion that the goods were accepted without
0bjection. On the contrary, the Defendant's consistent and
documented grievances clearly demonstrate that the goods
were neither accepted as satisfactory nor in compliance with
the agreed standards. The Defendant maintains that the
Plaintiff's inaction and disregard for the Defendant's
objections have directly contributed to the ongoing dispute,
rendering the Plaintiff's claim unfounded and untenable.

11. That the contents of Para 5(g) are denied, The Defendant
vehemently denies the claim made by the Plaintiff and
asserts that there is no obligation to pay the alleged
outstanding dues. The Plaintiff failed to deliver products of
acceptable quality, as the goods supplied were defective and
did not meet the agreed-upon standards. The Defendant
promptly communicated these quality issues to the Plaintiff
on multiple occasions, both verbally and in writing. Despite
 being made aware of these deficiencies, the Plaintiff failed
to address or rectify the matter. Consequently, the
Defendant is not liable for the amount claimed by the
Plaintiff, as the claim lacks merit and justification in light of
the substandard goods provided.

1 2. That the contents of Para 5(h), are denied. The Defendant

strongly denies the claim made by the Plaintiff. On
numerous occasions, the Defendant explicitly raised
concerns regarding the defects in the products supplied by
the Plaintiff and repeatedly requested that the issues be
promptly addressed. The Defendant further denies the
Plaintiffs allegation of providing false assurances or
making misleading statements. Clear communication was
made to the Plaintiff regarding the substandard quality, poor
quality of the goods dispatched, and these concerns were
brought to the Plaintiffs attention on multiple occasions.
The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs failure to take
corrective action despite repeated requests has rendered the
claim baseless and untenable.

13.That the contents of Para 5(i), are denied.

14. That the contents of Para 6, are denied. The Defendant had
previously raised legitimate concerns regarding the
defective goods supplied by the Plaintiff and the inflated
amount claimed. Given that these issues remained
unresolved, The Defendant maintains that the Plaintiffs
failure to engage in good faith to resolve these issues does
 not warrant the claim made, and therefore, the Defendant is
not liable for the amount in question.

1 5. That the contents of Para 7, are denied. The Defendant has

always acted in good faith, and the sole issue is the
unresolved dispute over defective, substandard goods
received. The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant acted with
an intent to cheat is baseless and unsupported by any
evidence.

16. That the contents of Para 8, are denied. That any delays in
payment were directly caused by the Plaintiff's failure to
deliver quality goods in accordance with the agreed terms.
The Defendant has always remained open to resolving the
matter in a fair and reasonable manner. The Plaintiffs claim
for damages and mental agony is unfounded, frivolous, and
lacks merit, as there is no substantiated basis for such a
claim in light of the Plaintiff's own failure to fulfill
contractual obligations.

1 7. In light of the above replies, the Defendant denies the

claims made by the Plaintiff and submits that the amount
claimed is exaggerated and unsupported. The Plaintiff's
failure to rectify the supply of defective has resulted in the
ongoing dispute. The Defendant requests this Hon'ble Court
to dismiss the suit and direct the Plaintiff to reconcile the
accounts fairly. The Plaintiff must be subjected to severe
cost on account of the present false and fabricated dispute.
REPLY TO CAUSE OF ACTION

1. The Defendant vehemently denies the Plaintiff's assertion

that the cause of action for filing the present suit arose in
favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant on
13.10.2021 or any subsequent dates, including 21.10.2021,
23.10.2021, 11.11.2021, and 1 3.11.2021, as alleged by the
Plaintiff. The Defendant denies that any cause of action
arose from the invoices raised by the Plaintiff, as the goods
supplied were defective, and the Defendant had, on several
occasions, raised concerns regarding the quality of the
products.

2. The Defendant further denies that any part-payment made

was an acknowledgment of liability, as such payment was
made under duress an<l with the understanding that the
Plaintiff would address the ongoing issues with the supplied
goods. The Defendant also denies that the cause of action
arose from the Legal Notice dated 05.12.2023, delivered on
12.12.2023, or from the lapse of the stipulated 15-day
period for making payment. The Plaintiff's failure to resolve
the disputes regarding the defective goods and overcharges
renders any claim for payment unjustified and baseless.

3. Additionally, the Defendant denies that the cause of action

is continuing or subsisting. The outstanding amount claimed
by the Plaintiff remains disputed due to the unresolved
issues with the goods supplied, and therefore, no legitimate
cause of action has arisen as claimed by the Plaintiff.
REPLY TO THE JURISDICTION

1. The Defendant denies that this Hon'ble Court has the

requisite territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain
the present suit. While the Plaintiff claims that the cause of
action arose in Delhi at their registered office, the Defendant
asserts that the disputes in question primarily relate to the
defective goods supplied by the Plaintiff, which were not
limited to transactions conducted exclusively or solely after
approval from the Plaintiffs Delhi office.

2. The Defendant pertains to mention that the GST Details of

the Defendant filed by the Petitioner itself shows that the
Defendant works for gain at Shop No.3, Laxmi Complex,
Raver Road, Savda, Jalgaon, Maharashtra which itself
shows that this suit filed by Petitioner doesn't lies in the
territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

3. The Defendant further denies that all transactions, including

the supply of goods and receipt of payments, took place as
claimed, under the sole authority of the Plaintiffs Delhi
office. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs claim of
jurisdiction based on the location of their registered office,
invoicing, and banking system is misplaced, as these
administrative operations do not establish a direct link to the
Defendant's grievances concerning the quality and non­
conformity of the goods supplied also hereby Defendant
mentions that everything from invoicing, delivery, payment
of products were done in Jalgaon, Maharashtra only, While
the Plaintiff may assert that the invoices contain terms for
exclusive jurisdiction in Delhi, the Defendant refutes the
 applicability of such terms, particularly in light of the
ongoing disputes over defective goods and unsatisfactory
business practices.

c11F
r. ��
DEFENDANT

THROUGH

SATYARAKSHA ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS

'--
' \_ ( /,..,,..,/7 'J.___
Counsw;he Defendant
Office: 33, Hemkunt Colony,
Greater Kailash- I, New Delhi- 1 10048
Email: [email protected]
'
Mobile: +9199899966225
+91 1 135634408

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: I 3 .02.2025
 IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAKET DISTRICT COURT, DELHI
CS/SCJ NO. 21.( � 0F 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SUNIL VISHNU NARKHEDE
PROPRIETOR OF MIS RAJALAXMI PAINT
HOUSE AND TRADING
...DEFENDANT

AFFIDAIVT

I, Sunil Vishnu Narkhede, aged about 43 years, Proprietor of the

Defendant Company, having its registered office at Shop No.3,

Laxmi Complex, Raver Road, Savda, Jalgaon, Maharashtra the

deponent does hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the Authorized Representative of the Defendant

___ Company and I am well conversant with the facts and

\ . •

circumstances of the present case as such I am also fully

competent to swear and affirm the present affidavit.

That I have read the accompanying Written Statement, the

 ' ._

of brevity. The Written Statement has been drafted under

my instructions.

3. That the contents thereof are believed to be true upon my

knowledge received from the records maintained by the

Defendant Company in the normal course of business. The

legal advice received by me is believed by me to be true. I

say that nothing material is concealed therefrom.

�
n
DEPONENT

VERIFICATION
,� h�wJ , 11,i
Verified at New @lbi- on this �day of ..f..b ,. , 2025 that the

contents of the above affidavit are true upon my knowledge and

��
DEPONENT
Tak Bhav
. ' 1 ; ' i• · :-: , 1. -:.nd1'r:I
f."111
'}l(Ad

Bh us,wva1, Li.:.:, i.. ,J algoan

R. No. 471 5
nMn i),:teume nt c.:mtt;,r,i r;.,� r"�gai
?{otii:,d & tia9!st�rnd at NJlPJi!t�.

___� �aj ,�,:·

.....,.__ ·._.S_j,���24
-S � l "::> --= . �-

r::a:=�.,,,,.,;, �:�,\t �::Jt!�==,.,_,,=-- ,,,#/,:,-� ft��J.<l §:�,�'"- ·

BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAKET DISTRICT COURT, SOUTH EAST,
DELHI
CS/SCJ NO. 248 OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SUNIL VISHNU NARKHEDE
PROPRIETOR OF MIS RAJALAXMI PAINT
HOUSE AND TRADING
...DEFENDANT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NOS.

1 Photograph of invoice raised for

the substandard, defective and
poor quality of products by the
plaintiff highlighting the batch
number of the delivered product.
2 Screenshots of communication
made by the defendant through
WhatsApp with zonal manager
of the Plaintiffs Company.
3 Photograph of substandard,
defective and poor quality of
products supplied by the
plaintiff highlighting the batch
no., manufacturing and
packaging details of the product.
4 Photograph of highlighting
substandard, defective and poor
f) quality of products stripping off
when used on wall

THROUGH

SATYARAKSHA AD OCATES & ATTORNEYS

(}.,�\-"\
r9 ·
'\-J>,

Coun or The Defendant

Office: 33, Hemkunt Colony,
Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi- 110048,
Email: officeofsriiantiwari@gmail. com
Mobile: +9199899966225
+911135634408

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: [ 3 .02.2025
 I
� .
IR•l11 locllon 11111 1n� 3HZI of COST Aol , ZOl7)
Onginll Fo, lhrrtf l Roe "'

"""° DIiieP O
d1rDoiau1 D1-•o•tch Dt,IA\\1 u11om11
-------f=.;;.=--fi"=='-'::'iu"'=,'c-0""u"Toivaii" -c""c-20 - c.. ,om.,
= = and
== Addrou Oall
,=-=o221 ta
----�
� 20 =
=--===
o ie ="','-'
am ,.o
2 s ,-•3-
="-'"'
eoa
3, DEC•2Gl0 APO STD PMl ,o e11 To� mJ10
Cudcm• NMTlo RAJU\XloU P.,1141
ai ComPlo• HOuSE & TRAD G
055 ORDCR 8 111 To Addtllt LAXI.II CO 'PlE)( • Of'
I 00'1 171 l'IO-OJ AAIIER AO

.. "
l 1-0CC-2020 SAVOA TAL

..,�
.(Ill
,•1114 RAVER SAIIDA SAJ04 1
IAWA VOA •

PllP C00'7tl ..�n

11111ar
t>n"h!JA"'l In PRAMOD Nl,..BOLl<AR 27ACUP..,�IE I ZO

I from Locallon Adih11 Ship from Loc1Uon Addr••• 11r d1Nerwn1

from BIii From
0!5 RAJL>J(f,ol PAl"1 HOUSE ,

. °"""'.
8"'11et Patnl• IN!ia lid
Nu • DtPOI • 055
Bwv• Paint, ln<lta Lid
TRAONG

U\XI.II COMPLEX SHOP

\II P1lnll (Bri 11\ Pa,nll NO.OJ, RAVER RD SAVDA
o,,.._ IAPHANA °'"'"••I BAl'tl,.,.A TAl RAVER ,SAVDA
\'I Aq[HO\JS\Ml PVT WAREHOUSING PVT
LTO GUlc >,0 - LTO GATE NO • 103 AIJBE
•03.AAIBE Hll.l5, AT-P0 HILLS AT-PO JAULKE •

-
JM.JI.ICE • DI DORI Dlt.DORl

"'
l.L\GE r.."5•� ,222 VILLAGE ,NASIK.l .,22206
Oli
.. Uhn M■hara.t,t.ra M1ruM'll1htJa
21""9CII0'!76E•ZV $TIN 27MBCB0976EIZV 27ACMPN4541!EIZD
• 20Ul71• 7fi20e537I•

., Code

--.
.,.,_
Payment , .......1
Dltcount ..,d ou,., V•luo
"""1CO$. Ono,pUoll of Ory Raio/ B1111
HSN P1<k NOP Gross ValUI 01■counl Ol■count
G- LUI<� Un� Tu

•iOI0:2lJOOO
D<DOR LUXURY INT s t60 7•H OO 59114' 00 ,000 00 0 00 0 00 00
320Q
,1.s10,n1NT1HG T.8.
,-2. 20 U
OG.$TCG5T 9%
5C,$T\JGST 9
 1!'11 W
� -
= Vol) I Vol)
":',1.'l' LTE1 , t l LTE2 ,d j 6 9 0/
IQ ■

<

British Anku r Kapor Zm

Mob i le 89 680 390 22

D Cal l with default: SI M 1 )

0 0
Wh atsApp

History

Storage locations
••
•
Favourites Edit Share More

111 0 <
 11!!!1
I,;/
�
•
...--..
�T LTEl
Vo1)
,I
II LTE2 , I II
Vol)
/Q ■
7301

••
+9 1 8 9 680 3 ... 0 •

J:-::
' . • 3:31 pm ✓/

�> Forwarded
Respected Sir/Madam,
We a re " Rajlaxmi Paints, Savda". We
used your product ''Splendor- Luxury
I nterior Emu lsion" in one of our site.
But u nfortunately after Applying this
colour we found that a pplied colour
peeled off a long with applied paper
tape. Which should not happend with
our product.
I request you to take d etailed check
on thi s matter.
P·roduct name: Splendor- Luxu ry
I nterior Emu lsion
Batch No: 330-42646
PKO : OCT 2020
Please go through it.
Tha nking you

Enclosure:
1 . I mages of prod uct used with
batch deta ils
2. Site images with peeled colour
4:49 pm ✓/

1 3 December 2023

�> Forwarded

© Messa ...

111 0 <
 11!!1 �
II, •
..-..
'='
Vol)
LTE1 , I I I LTE2 ,I I I
Vo1) 7 3 01
to ■

•
+9 1 89680 3 ... D ••

29 December 2023

@ �essa ...
© @] .
111 0 <
 l!!I �
� •
.,... Val)
':",1,1' LTE1 ,I
II LTE2
Val)
,I
II 7 3 01
IO ■

ff)
� ·---·
-·
+9 1 8 9 6 8 0 3 ... 0
••
•
�> Forwarded

@ Messa ... @J
© @] .
111 0 <
 11!!1 W
11,1 •
,.....
-:-
Vo1)
LTE1 ,I
11 LTE2 , I I I 7 Q 0/ ■
Vo1)
IO

+9 1 89 680 39022

M ed i a Docs L i nks

June

2023

111 0 <
 L u . U RY I N r R o

...
• ,
 IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAKET l)ISTRICT COURT, DELHI
CS/SCJ NO.2.l,j % OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

I

BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.

THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
. . . PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SUNIL VISHNU NARKHEDE
PROPRIETOR OF MIS RAJALAXMI PAINT
HOUSE AND TRADING
. . . DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 63 OF BHARATIYA

SAKSHYA ADHINIYA, 2023 ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANT

I, Sunil Vishnu Narkhede, aged about 43 years, Proprietor of the

Defendant Company, having its registered office at Shop No.3,
Laxmi Complex, Raver Road, Savda, Jalgaon, Maharashtra the
deponent does hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the Authorized Representative of the

Defendant Company and I am well conversant with the
facts and circumstances of the present case as such I am
also fully competent to swear and affirm the present
affidavit.

2. I accessed website links and other electronic records

mentioned below from the computer network described
below which;- is regularly used by me in the ordinary
course of business and thereafter, printed the relevant
information using printers regularly used by me in the
ordinary course of my activities.
 S.No Description Source Date of Time of

l
1 . /Photograph of invoice raised D:\Sunil Narkehede
Print , ••• · Print

27 .0!,2025 ·'
16:13
\ / for the substandard, defective \berger vs sunil
�-
and poor quality of products
by the Plaintiff highlighting
the batch number of the
delivered product

2. Screenshots of D:\Sunil Narkehede 27.�2025 1 6: 1 5

Communications made by the \berger vs sunil
defendant through WhatsApp
with Zonal manager of the
Plaintiffs Company
highlighting the gnevances
raised by the Defendant.

3. Photograph of substandard, D:\Sunil Narkehede 27.01.2025 16: 1 5

defective and poor-quality \berger vs sunil
products supplied by the
Plaintiff highlighting the
batch no., manufacturing and
packaging details of the
Product

4. Photograph of highlighting D:\Sunil Narkehede 27.01.2025 1 6: 1 5

substandard or defective \berger vs sunil
quality of Product stripping
off when used on wall
 ,. .·
,.-1 :: _ \�
The relevant �rintouts as downloaded and printed by me are
_
(!j
,_t/': � ed along with the List of Documents. _
• .. . . · 3<1 I I state that I have downloaded the above mformatlon onto/
accessed the information on computer i.e., HP Laptop which
;._,..1/

is regularly used by me in the ordinary course of business

and have taken printouts by using a printer HP LaserJ et
M72630dn which printers were/are regularly used by me in
the ordinary course of business.

4. I am advised to state that the conditions of Section 63 of the

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniya, 2023 are complied with in
respect of these documents.

5. In particular, I confirm:-

a) That the said computer system and the printer are regularly
used to produce the computer outputs like emails and
information from the World Wide Web (internet) and store
other electronic records such as power point presentations.
The relevant information from the websites, emails and
electronic records as mentioned above was downloaded by
me in the course of my duty for the Plaintiff. I have lawful
control over the use of the said computer system and the
printer by virtue of my capacity in the organization.
b) That the electronic records mentioned above were printed
from the computer system as a part of the ordinary course
of activities of the organization.
c) That the computer system and the printer as used by me has
been operating properly and the electronic records and their
accuracy and contents have not been altered and tampered
with in any manner whatsoever.
 -- .
d) That the information contained in the computer outputs is
an exact replica and has been produced from the original
Electronic record and thereof, reproduces the information
contained on the Electronic Records therein.
�
�
DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at Ne� �� this 19�day of � -; 2025 that the

contents of Para 1-3 and 5 of my affidavit are true to my
knowledge and contents of para 4 is based on the legal advice
received and believed to be true and nothing material or relevant
has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

,L
--.l""mlinavft
Sign ed PrA,.,re Me
Adv. t\! ·. ,. ' - . . ·' · ,
ti udharf

Tak B h2 . • . . . ' e . ; M
artdlr�
Bhusi:J,/,,:.,, c. ..... ,. Jaigoart
.1 '

R. No. 4715
 IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAKET DISTRiCT COURT, DELHI
CS/SCJ NO. 2-�i OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SUNIL VISHNU NARK.DEDE
PROPRIETOR OF M/S RAJALAXMI PAINT
HOUSE AND TRADING
... DEFENDANT

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE

LIMITATION ACT, 1963 FOR CONDONATION OF
DELAY IN FILING WRITTEN STATEMENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1 . That the present suit, bearing case number CS/SCJ No. 35 1

of 2024, was filed by the Plaintiff, seeking recovery of Rs.
1 ,03,3 1 2.1 3/- (Rupees One Lakh Three Thousand Three
Hundred Twelve and Thirteen Paise Only) along with
interest from the Defendant.

2. That due to unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances, the

Defendant could not file the written statement within the
prescribed time period as stipulated under Order VIII Rule
1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1 908.

3. The delay in filing the Written Statement was due to

inadvertent reasons.
4. The reasons for the delay are as follows:

a) The Defendant faced significant difficulties in

compiling and organizing the necessary documents
with his counsel required for preparing the written
statement due to their limited technical knowledge of
email and WhatsApp. complexity and volume.
b) That on the last date of hearing Defendant's counsel,
who was actively handling the case, was unable to
attend the proceedings or file the necessary
documents on time due to the sudden and critical
illness of his father, who required urgent
hospitalization and still requires continuous care.
c) The delay in filing the written statement was neither
intentional nor deliberate but was purely inadvertent
and beyond the control of the Defendant.

5. That the Defendant is genuinely interested in contesting the

suit on merits and ensuring that justice is served. The
Applicant assures this Hon'ble Court that the delay was not
caused with any malafide intent to delay the proceedings or
avoid legal responsibilities.

6. That the Hon'ble Court may consider the following legal

principles while deciding this application:
A. Procedural laws are tools for justice and should
not become hurdles in the delivery of substantive
justice.
B. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land
Acquisition vs. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107]
 held that a liberal and justice-oriented approach must
be adopted while deciding applications for
condonation of delay, as every litigant deserves a fair
opportunity to be heard.

7. The balance of convemence lies in favor of the

Defendant/Applicant, as condoning the delay will not cause
prejudice to the Plaintiff, whereas its dismissal would result
in irreparable harm and grave injustice to the Defendant,
depriving him of his right to defend the suit.

8. That this application is being made bona fide and in the

interest of justice, equity, and fair play.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that in view of the above

said circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble Court may graciously
be pleased to:

A. Allow the present application and Condone the delay in filing

the written statement by the Defendant in the present suit;

B. Take on record the written statement along with this

application; and

C. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may

-------
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
 .;

THROUGH
SATYARAKSHA AD ATTORNEYS
' -�°'�)f?\\_'1\.
r The Defendant
Office: 33, Hemkunt Colony,
Greater Kailash- I, New Delhi- 110048
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: +9199899966225
+911135634408
 IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
SAKET DISTRICT COURT, DELHI
CS/SCJ NO. 2-1.fOF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SUNIL VISHNU NARKHEDE
PROPRIETOR OF MIS RAJALAXMI PAINT
HOUSE AND TRADING
...DEFENDANT

AFFIDAIVT
I, Sunil Vishnu Narkhede, aged about 43 years, Proprietor of the

Defendant Firm, having its registered office at Shop No.3, Laxrni

Complex, Raver Road, Savda, J algaon, Maharashtra the deponent does

hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

J. . That I am the Proprietor of Lhe Defendant Firm and I am well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case

r- as such I am also fully competent to swear and affirm the present

affidavit.

cc · ·
'\��
:,11 91·,·o r2.027
t "l; \.
\ •
.� 7

' �\· f
�---_,P·��,
-� . �
:\,,,
/\:),
·�

))
1' 2. • That I have read the application under section 5 of the Limitation

Act, 1963 the contents of which are not being repeated herein for

the sake of brevity. The Application has been drafted under my

instructions.

3. That the contents thereof are believed to be true upon my

knowledge received from the records maintained by the

Defendant Company in the normal course of business. The legal

advice received by me is believed by me to be true. I say that

nothing material is concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

Verified at
1'\.,
� ��� \j?b�on this .l-2\-day of f� -, 2025 that

the contents of the above affidavit are true upon my knowledge and that

��

,,,
DEPONENT
,,
Affidavit
Signed )mon3 rvfe
,,,Adv. Nprf'' · f,-J D. Chaudhf.ui
v
,. r ianditr,
fli, U,;�;.. J,,�/gosn
. No. 471 5
 IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAKET DISTRICT COURT, DELHI
CS/SCJ NO.2.� i OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
. . . PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SUNIL VISHNU NARK.BEDE
PROPRIETOR OF MIS RAJALAXMI PAINT
HOUSE AND TRADING
. . . DEFENDANT

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT UNDER

ORDER 7 RULE 1 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE 1908 SEEKING REJECTION OF THE
PLAINT

MOST RESPECTFULY SHOWETH:

1. That the captioned suit is pending adjudication before this

Hon'ble Court and is praying for reliefs against the
Defendant.

2. That Applicant/Defendant is filing the present Application

before this Hon'ble Court under the provisions of Order 7,
Rule 11 D and Section 1 51 of the Civil Procedure Code
1908, for the rejection of the Plaint. It is submitted that the
present Application may be read as part and parcel of the
Written Statement, which has is being filed by Defendant,
, .. i--
. ...
 detailing the facts and circumstances of the case and the
same have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

3. That the Defendant, Mr. Sunil Vishnu Narkhede, is the sole

proprietor of M/S Rajalaxmi Paint House Trading, a
business entity residing and working for gain at Mumbai,
known for its established go9dwill and reputable standing
in the market.

4. That the Plaintiff has deliberately suppressed material facts

and circumstances and filed the present suit that ought to be
rejected due to lack of jurisdiction.

5. That the suit filed by the Respondent is nothing but

deliberate arm twisting of the Applicant, as the Respondent
has conveniently filed the suit in the jurisdiction where it
works for gain (has its head office). This conduct reflects a
dishonest intention on the Plaintiffs part to misuse the legal
process to coerce payment of an exaggerated and unjustified
amount.

6. No Cause of Action: There is no cause of action as the

Respondent has suppressed material information regarding
the communication and other grievances with reference to
the substandard quality of the product received by him. Due
to this reason the suit is liable to be rejected.

7. No Territorial Jurisdiction: The Applicant submits that

that this Hon'ble Court lacks the requisite territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. While the
Respondent claims that the cause of action arose in Delhi at
 their registered office, the Applicant asserts that the disputes
in question primarily relate to the defective goods supplied
by the Respondent.

8. That it is pertinent to mention that the GST Details of the

Applicant filed by the Respondent itself shows that the
Applicant works for gain at Shop No.3, Laxmi Complex,
Raver Road, Savda, Jalgaon, Maharashtra which itself
shows that this suit filed by Respondent doesn't lie in the
territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The suit had to
filed in the jurisdiction where the Applicant resides and
works for gain.

9. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that all transactions,

including the supply of goods and receipt of payments, took
place in the jurisdiction where the Applicant resides and
works for gain. The Respondent's claim of jurisdiction
based on the location of their registered office, invoicing,
and banking system is misplaced and denied, as these
administrative operations do not establish a direct link to the
Applicant's grievances concerning the quality and non­
conformity of the goods supplied also everything from
invoicing, delivery, payment of products were done in
Jalgaon, Maharashtra only. The invoices on record clearly
show the billing address, shipping address, place of supply
place of origin and dispatch of the goods to consigners
address. Further all communications leading to the dispute
originate in Maharashtra. The While the Plaintiff may assert
that the invoices contain terms for exclusive jurisdiction in
Delhi, the Defendant refutes the applicability of such terms,
as parties cannot choose a jurisdiction, on the other hand
 only the Court within who's jurisdiction the cause of action
of occurs may adjudicate the matter.
10. Therefore, the Applicants respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to consider the aforementioned facts and
provisions and reject the Respondent's plaint on the ground
that the suit is barred by statute.
11.That in these circumstances it is respectfully submitted that
this Hon'ble Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate
the present suit and it would be just, proper and expedient
that this Hon'ble Court may reject the Plaint as the
Respondent have not exercised the correct remedy that may
be available to them.
12.That it is submitted that there is no impediment either in fact
or in law to the grant of relief as prayed for through the
present Application. It is therefore respectfully submitted
that the present suit is liable to be rejected.
13.That this application is being bonafide and in the interest of
justice.

PRAYER

In the facts and circumstances as stated herein above, the

Applicant prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to:-

a) pass an order rejecting the Plaint on account of the

suit is barred by statute (Order VII Rule 1 l (d).; or
b) pass an order for presentation of the Plaint in an
appropriate Court/Tribunal;
 c) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
�
P::;:>
APPLICANT

THROUGH

SATYARAKSHA ADVOCATES & ATTORNEYS

""
"\.\_ ,/"Je,.__rv"?\ "'
Co�7�r the Defendant
Office: 33, Hemkunt Colony,
Greater Kailash- I, New Delhi- 1 10048
Email: officeofsrij [email protected]
Mobile: +9199899966225
+91 1 135634408

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: tJ .02.2025
 IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAKET DISTRICT COURT, DELHI
CS/SCJ NO. 2.li $ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.
THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
. . . PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SUNIL VISHNU NARKHEDE
PROPRIETOR OF MIS RAJALAXMI PAINT
HOUSE AND TRADING
. . . DEFENDANT

AFFIDAIVT
I, Sunil Vishnu Narkhede, aged about 43 years, Proprietor of the

Defendant Company, having its registered office at Shop No.3,

Laxmi Complex, Raver Road, Savda, Jalgaon, Maharashtra the

deponent does hereby solemnly affinn and declare as under:

l. That I am the Authorized Representative of the Defendant

Company and I am well conversant with the facts and

circumstances of the present case as such I am also fully

competent to swear and affirm the present affidavit.

2. That I have read the Application on behalf of Defendant

__ .,,� under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Civil

'
i Procedure Code 1908 seeking rejection of the plaint read
.-'?
:.\
• with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the
.
 contents of which are not being repeated herein for the sake

of brevity. The Application has been drafted under my

instructions.

3. That the contents thereof are believed to be true upon my

knowledge received from the records maintained by the

Defendant in the normal course of business. The legal

advice received by me is believed by me to be true. I say

that nothing material is concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

�<_!<. '9�IN J,
Verified at Nsw
� /1. /J � , 2025 that the
Delhi.on this 1.--1-day of 'T�

contents of the above affidavit are true upon my knowledge and

that nothing material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT