IN THE HIGH COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-3 & ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE, NAGPUR

No. F.F.

s
.Vs.
e
Deponent: ,
Aged - years, Occu: -,
R/o --.

AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF

I, the above named Deponent, do hereby take oath and states

on solemn affirmation as under:-

1. That,

2. That,

3. That,

4. That,

5. That,

6. That,

7. That,

8. That,

9. That,

10. That,
 Hence this affidavit.

NAGPUR

DATED: /7/2014 (Deponent name)

VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents of above paras 1 to -- of affidavit are

drafted upon my instructions and are true and correct to the best of
my personal knowledge and belief. The same have been understood
by me.

Hence, signed on this day of ___, 2014 at Nagpur.

DEPONENT

I know and identify the deponent.

Advocate
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SPECIAL COURT OF 138 OF N.I. ACT,
NAGPUR.

S.C.C. No.2024/05 F.F. 10/3/2012

Bazargaon Paper & Pulp Mills (P) Ltd.

V/s
Ambal Packaging

DEPONENT : Naresh S/o Narayanrao Dhole,

Authorised Signatory/ P.O.H. of M/s. Bazargaon
Paper and Pulp Mills (P) Ltd.
Aged 37 years, Occu. Service
at Opp. Patwardhan High School
Sitabuldi, Nagpur-12.

EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT

I above named deponent do hereby take oath and states on

solemn affirmation as under:-

1. That, the deponent states that the complainant is doing

business of paper selling at Nagpur to its customer as per our invoice
and Customers’ order. It is further submitted that the complainant is
private firm/company and its head office is situated at Nagpur.

2. That deponent further states that, at the time of lodging of

complaint, complaint was filed through it’s power of attorney holder
Shri P.B. Supare, who has now retired from the service of the
complainant. That, deponent is one of the Authorized signatory/
Employee/ Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant Company
and has power to depose on behalf of company. Deponent is having
knowledge about the transaction which is subject matter of the
complaint.

3. That deponent further states that, non- applicant/accused

is a customer of complainant firm. The complainant sold the
goods/material to the accused worth Rs. 16,21,894/- as per the
account book position on 07.6.2005 of the complainant firm their was
outstanding for the aforesaid amount as per the orders for supply of
goods by accused.

4. That deponent further states that, the accused used to

order for the supply of the goods/material required by him as per his
need. The deponent further submits that as per the account books as
on 07.6.2005 there was outstanding amount against the accused. The
account is generated from computer used in routine course of
business on 19.02.2010 showing outstanding amount against the
accused. I have filed copies of account book position for the period of
year 2004-05 to 2008-09. The contents of the same are true and
correct. The computers were properly operating and were in good
condition. Thus account book position is produced by me is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. It bears signature of
Shri Shelly on account book and certificate of senior accountant of
Complainant Company. It bears signature of Mahendra Bavistale. I
know and identify his signature as he works as an Accountant in the
Complainant Company.

5. That deponent further states that, the accused issued a

cheque amounting to Rs.50,000/- against the said outstanding balance amount
in favour of complainant. The cheque issued by accused is filed on record. The
contents of the cheque are true and correct. It bears signature of accused as
proprietor of Ambal Packaging. I know and Identify the signature of accused on
cheque. It is issued in the name of complainant. It is at Exh.___ . The details of
cheque are as under;
Cheque No. Date Amount Drawn On
0393945 07/06/2005 50,000/- State Bank of India-
Pondicherry

That, deponent further states that, I have filed also filed

on record Bank deposit slip on record of dated 07/06/2005.

6. That deponent further states that, the complainant

deposited the aforesaid cheque to its bank i.e. ICICI for encashment
but was surprised to receive cheque returned memo dated 14.6.2005
from the banker of accused communicating that the above cheque
had been returned unpaid for the reason No. 15 “ Exceeds
Arrangement ”. The cheque retuned memo is filed on record the
contents of the same are true and correct it bears signature of
manager of banker of accused. It is at Exh.__. That the deponent
further states that, the said came to the knowledge of complainant
firm intimation letter come debit advice issued by the banker of the
complainant bank dated 14/06/2005 is filed on record. It bears
signature of the concern officer. The contents of it are true and
correct. It is at Exh.__.

7. That deponent further states that, the complainant issued

a legal notice dated 02/07/2005 posted on the address of accused on
02/07/2005 through their advocate vide registered post A.D. due
bringing to the knowledge of the return of the aforesaid cheque and
calling upon the accused to make payment of the sum towards the
cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The
office copy of the said notice is filed on record. It bears signature of
advocate of applicant. I know and identify his signature. The contents
of the said notice are true and correct. It is at Exh.__.

8. That deponent further states that, the original slip of

registered post is filed on record. The contents in it are true and
correct. It is at Exh.__. That deponent further states that, the
envelope of the notice sent by registered post A.D. was served to the
accused on 06.7.2005. The said envelope returned to the advocate of
the complainant on dated 14/07/2005 with an endorsement of “Not
Claimed”. I have filed the said returned envelope on the record.

9. That deponent further states that, the liability of cheque

amount still subsist against the accused though the complainant
received Rs. 10,000/- from the accused on dated 5.9.2007 vide
vouch-ref CR079-05001 during pendency of this complaint.

10. That, the deponent further submits that, the accused knowing
well that, there is no sufficient amount in the account of accused even
then issued the said cheque with malafide intention and defrauded
and caused wrongful loss to the complainant and thus the accused
has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and under Section 420 of Indian
Penal Code as the cheque was not honored / encashed.

11. That, the deponent further submits that, the complaint has been
filed after due compliance with the conditions prescribed under
section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881 and is
within the limitation as provided under the Act.

12. That, the deponent further states that, the accused failed to pay
the cheque amount, thus the cause of action recurs and continues as
the amount towards the said cheque is still unpaid.

13. That, the deponent submits that, the accused be tried and
punished for the offense punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. That, the deponent further submits that the
complainant be given compensation u/s 357 of Criminal Procedure
Code. That, the complainant also submits that, the penalty be
imposed on accused of double the cheque amount and complainant
be allowed as prayed for.
 Hence, this affidavit.

Nagpur
Dated: / /2012 DEPONENT

SOLEMN AFFIRMATION

I, Naresh S/o. Narayanrao Dhole, Aged about 37 years, Occu:

Service, R/o at Nagpur, one of the Authorised signatory / Power of
Attorney Holder of complainant do hereby take oath and state on
solemn affirmation that the contents of above Paras 1 to 13 of
affidavit have been drafted by my counsel upon my instructions and
are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief
and as per the company’s record.

Hence, verified and signed on this day of March, 2012 at Nagpur.

DEPONENT

I know and identify the deponent.

Advocate

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SPECIAL COURT OF 138 OF N.I. ACT,

NAGPUR.
S.C.C. No. 2071/05 F.F. .2.2012

Bazargaon Paper & Pulp Mills (P) Ltd.

V/s
Ambal Packaging

EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT

DEPONENT: Naresh S/o Narayanrao Dhole,

Authorised Signatory/ P.O.H. of M/s. Bazargaon
Paper and Pulp Mills (P) Ltd.
Aged 37 years, Occu. Service
at Opp. Patwardhan High School
Sitabuldi, Nagpur-12.

I above named deponent do hereby take oath and states on

solemn affirmation as under;
1. That, the deponents state that the complainant is doing
business of paper selling at Nagpur to its customer as per their
invoice and their order. It is further submitted that the complainant is
private firm/company and its head office is situated at Nagpur.
2. That deponent further states that, at the time of lodging of
complaint, complaint was filed through it’s power of attorney holder
Shri. P.B. Supare, who has now retired from the service of the
complainant. That deponent is one of the Authorize signatory/ Power
of Attorney of the complainant company and has power to depose on
behalf of company. Deponent is having knowledge about the
transaction which is subject matter of the complaint.
3. That deponent further states that, nonapplicant/accused
is a customer of complainant firm. The complainant sold the
goods /material to the accused worth Rs. 16,21,894/- as per the
account book position on 30.6.2005 of the complainant firm their
was outstanding for the aforesaid amount as per the orders for
supply of goods by accused.

4. That deponent further states that, the accused used to

order for the supply of the goods/material required by him as per his
need. The deponent further submits that as per the account books as
on 30.6.2005 there was outstanding amount against the accused. The
account is generated from computer used in routine course of
business on 19.2.2010 showing outstanding amount against the
accused. I have filed copies of account book position for the period of
year 2004-05 to 2008-09. The contents of the same are true and
correct. The computers were properly operating and were in good
condition. Thus account book position is produced by me is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. It bears signature of
me and a certificate of senior accountant of Complainant Company. It
bears signature of ______________ dated 19/2/2010. I know and
identify his signature as he worked was under me.
5. That deponent further states that, the accused issued a
cheque amounting to Rs. 50,000/- against the said outstanding
balance amount in favour of complainant. The cheque issued by
accused is filed on record. The contents of the cheque are true and
correct. It bears signature of accused as proprietor of Ambal
Packaging. I know and identify the signature of accused on cheque. It
is issued in the name of complainant. It is at Exh.___ . The details of
cheque are as under;

Cheque No. Date Amount Drawn On

393950 25/06/2005 50,000/- State Bank of India
Branch Siruthozhin
Pondicherry
 That, deponent further states that, I have filed also filed
on record Bank deposit slip on record of dated 25/06/2005.
6. That deponent further states that, the complainant
deposited the aforesaid cheque to its bank i.e. ICICI on 25.06.2005
for encashment but was surprised to receive cheque returned memo
dated 28.6.2005 from the banker of accused communicating that the
above cheque had been returned unpaid for the reason No. 1 “
Funds Insufficient ”. The cheque retuned memo is filed on record the
contents of the same are true and correct it bears signature of
manager of banker of accused. It is at Exh.__. That the deponent
further states that, the said came to the knowledge of complainant
firm intimation letter come debit advice issued by the banker of the
complainant bank is filed on record. It bears signature of the concern
officer. The contents of it are true and correct. It is at Exh.__.
7. That deponent further states that, the complainant issued
a legal notice dated 21.7.2005 posted on the address of accused on
21.7.2005 through their advocate vide registered post A.D. due
bringing to the knowledge of the return of the aforesaid cheque and
calling upon the accused to make payment of the sum towards the
cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The
office copy of the said notice is filed on record. It bears signature of
advocate of applicant. I know and identify his signature. The contents
of the said notice are true and correct. It is at Exh.__.
8. That deponent further states that, the original slip of
registered post is filed on record. The contents in it are true and
correct. It is at Exh.__. That deponent further states that, the
envelope of the notice sent by registered post A.D. was served to the
accused on 27.7.2005. The said envelope returned to the advocate of
the complainant on dated 05.8.2005 with an endorsement of “ Not
Claimed ”. I have filed the said returned envelope on the record.
9. That deponent further states that, the liability of cheque
amount still subsist against the accused though the complainant
received amounts from the accused on different dates during
pendency of this complaint.

10. That, the deponent further submits that, the accused knowing
well that, there is no sufficient amount in the account of accused even
then issued the said cheque with malafide intention and defrauded
and caused wrongful loss to the complainant and thus the accused
has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and under Section 420 of Indian
Penal Code as the cheque was not honored / encashed.
11. That, the deponent further submits that, the complaint has been
filed after due compliance with the conditions prescribed under
section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881 and is
within the limitation as provided under the Act.
12. That, the deponent further states that, the accused failed to pay
the cheque amount, thus the cause of action recurs and continues as
the amount towards the said cheque is still unpaid.
13. That, the deponent submits that, the accused be tried and
punished for the offense punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. That, the deponent further submits that the
complainant be given compensation u/s 357 of Criminal Procedure
Code. That, the complainant also submits that, the penalty be
imposed on accused of double the cheque amount and complainant
be allowed as prayed for.
Hence, this affidavit.
Nagpur
Dated: / /2012 DEPONENT

SOLEMN AFFIRMATION

I, Naresh S/o. Narayanrao Dhole, Aged about 37 years, Occu:

Service, R/o. at Nagpur, one of the Authorised signatory / Power of
Attorney Holder of complainant do hereby take oath and state on
solemn affirmation that the contents of above Paras 1 to 13 of
affidavit have been drafted by my counsel upon my instructions and
are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief
and as per the company’s record.

Hence, verified and signed on this day of February 2012 at

Nagpur.

I know and identify the deponent.

DEPONENT

Advocate
 IN THE COURT OF 4TH JOINT CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION
NAGPUR

Spl. Civil Suit No. 686/2011 F.F. 2/3/2013

Paresh R. Mangloria and one

.Vs.
Bhushan Dawale

Deponent: Paresh S/o. Rambhai Mangloria,

Aged 48 years, Occu: Business
R/o 17, Farm Land Near Gurudwara, Ramdaspeth
Nagpur.
 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT

I,the abovenamed Deponent do hereby take oath and state on

Solemn Affirmation as under :-

1. I say that, after filing my Evidence on Affidavit, the defendant

filed Written Statement. The contention raised in the Written
Statement by the defendant are false and frivolous, as far as the
contention raised that the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property as
on basis. It is also false that, the agreed to purchase the same for
value of Rs.12,00,000/-, the plaintiff paid the amounts as stated by
him in the Affidavit and it was defendant who has to bring necessary
regularization at his expense. The plaintiff paid amounts on 7.4.2007
of Rs.40,000/- ,10,000/- on 17.4.2007, Rs.50,000/- on 15.5.2007,
Rs.2,00,000/- on 10.6.2007, Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.7.2007 and Rs.
92,500/- as stated by him and it was defendant who had not brought
N.O.C. the plaintiff further states that Agreement was executed on
12.5.2008 and it bears the signature of defendant. The contents in the
Agreement are true and correct. The said document is not at all fraud.
The suit is filed within limitation and there is no question of causing
loss to the defendant because of any act of the plaintiff.

2. It is false that there was any oral Agreement in respect of

purchase of the property for Rs.12,00,000/- and amount were agreed
to be paid by Cheques only, all the amounts paid in cash, for which
even defendant had signed the Cash Vouchers at the time of receipt
of cash, so also in respect of Cheque and those are filed by me on
record. It is false that, if I failed to obtain the documents from N.I.T.
the amount paid by me would be seized. The defendant had
unnecessarily just to avoid now even money received by him had
come up with false and frivolous contention. Thus the suit filed by the
plaintiff needs to be decreed with costs as prayed.
NAGPUR

DATED: / /2013 Deponent

VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents of above paras 1 to 2 of affidavit are

drafted upon my instructions and are true and correct to the best of
my personal knowledge and belief. The same have been understood
by me.

Hence, signed on this day of 2013at Nagpur.

DEPONENT

I know and identify the deponent.

Advocate
 IN THE COURT OF JOINT CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION
NAGPUR

Spl. Civil Suit No.310/2006 Decided on 26/7/2011

State Bank of Hyderabad

.Vs.
Shyamsunder Channe & one

Deponent: Shri Manik S/o Kisanrao Rokade,

Aged 56 years, Occu: Service Manager S.B.H.,Badkas

Chowk, Mahal, Nagpur.

R/o. Nagpur.

AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF DECREE HOLDER BANK

 I, the above named Deponent, do hereby take oath and states
on solemn affirmation as under:-
1. That, this Hon’ble Court had decreed the suit filed by the
plaintiff Bank. That, the J.Dr. had deposited the amount towards the
decree with the plaintiff and is seeking original documents. That, this
Hon’ble Court had asked the D.Hr. Bank to produce an Affidavit in
respect of non-receipt of any notice of appeal. It is submitted that the
D.Hr. Bank had not received any notice in respect of appeal
challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in the instant suit or
any other proceeding filed by the J.Dr. under the cause of action of
suit. Hence the original documents filed by the plaintiff be returned to
the D.Hr. Bank.

Hence this Affidavit as per the Order passed by this Hon’ble

Court.

Nagpur
Dated : Deponent

VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents of above para of affidavit are drafted

upon my instructions and are true and correct to the best of my
personal knowledge and belief.The same have been understood by
me. Hence, signed on this day of July 2013 at Nagpur.

DEPONENT

I know and identify the deponent.

Advocate
 IN THE COURT OF 2nd JOINT CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION
NAGPUR

Spl. Civil Suit No.975/2012 F.F. 3.9.2013

State Bank of Hyderabad

.Vs.
Imamuddin (dead) through L.Rs.
Jabin Sultana and others.

Deponent: Ramachandra Mohanty

Aged 58 years, Occu: Service chief Manager S.B.H.,
Latur

AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF BANK OF WITNESS NO.2.

I, the above named Deponent, do hereby take oath and states

on solemn affirmation as under:-
1. That, the suit filed by the plaintiff Bank for recovery of amount
of Rs.2,84,808.50ps. against the defendants Imamuddin and another.

2. That, late Imamuddin and his wife Jabin Sultana applied to the
plaintiff Bank for obtaining loan for working capital requirements of
Steel furniture business. I was Branch Manager at the Badkas Chowk
Branch of the Plaintiff Bank. The application was submitted to me and
I had sanctioned the said loan to the extent of Rs. 2,25,000/-, the
sanctioning authority was myself and it bears my signature. The
contents in the said application and record of the Bank in respect of
sanctioning are true and correct. I know and identify my signature on
the said sanction.

3. That the arrangement letter was issued on 8.5.2002 the

Duplicate of said arrangement letter duly signed by borrower was
submitted to the Bank, I had signed as a Branch Manager on the said
arrangement letter, the contents therein are true and correct. I know
and identify the signature on the said letters.

4. That the Agreement of loan was executed on 8 th May 2002 in

my presence, I had signed as a Branch Manager on the said
Agreement of loan, the contents therein are true and correct. I know
and identify the signature on the said Agreement.
5. That the Memorandum of title deeds was deposited on 8 th May
2002 in my presence, It bears my signature, so also Jabin Sultana,
the contents therein are true and correct. I know and identify the
signature on the said Memorandum of deposit of title deed.

6. That, Smt. Jabin Sultana was issued letter in respect of

entering entry No. 09/11704 in Title-deeds register 02 on 8.5.2002,
she acknowledged the receipt of the said letter, it bears my signature,
the contents therein are true and correct.

7. That, Smt. Jabin Sultana issued letter in respect of confirmation

of deposit of original title documents with the Bank it bears her
signature, the contents therein are true and correct.

8. That, Mohd. Imamuddin and Jabin Sultana confirmed the

deposit of title –deeds with the Bank, the said letter of confirmation
bears her signature. The document of Insurance Indemnity, letter
regarding property being self occupied was also submitted by
Imamuddin and Jabin Sultana to the Branch on 8.5.2002 in my
presence, it bears signature of both of them.

9. That, I was working as a Bank Manager on 8.5.2002 at Nagpur,

that even the title deeds register I had signed being Station at Badkas
Chowk Branch, Nagpur it also bears my signature the contents
therein are true and correct.

Hence this Affidavit.

Nagpur
Dated : Deponent

VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents of above paras of affidavit are drafted

upon my instructions and are true and correct to the best of my
personal knowledge and belief. The same have been understood by
me. Hence, signed on this 11.10. 2013 at Nagpur.

I know and identify the deponent.

Advocate DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE NAGPUR

M.C.A. No.288/2007 F.F. 27.8.2013

Harikisan and others.

.Vs.
Corporation of City of Nagpur and others.

Deponent: Nandkishore S/o. Chhaganal Jhaver

Aged 47 years, Occu: Business

Near Dharaskar Road, Itwari, Nagpur.

EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT

I, the above named Deponent, do hereby take oath and states

on solemn affirmation as under:-

1. That, Mpl. Corporation House No. 570, situated in Ward No.31,

City Survey No.556, admeasuring 126.7 Sq.Mtr. with construction
thereon, located near Dharaskar Road, Itwari, Nagpur was owned by
father of the applicant. That, I and other applicants being L.Rs. of late
Chhaganlalji had become co-owners of the property after his death.
The Original Sale-deed of the said property is produced by me in
R.C.S.No. 924/95 and I do not hold the same now.

2. I had produced the certified copy of the Property Card in the

name of my father in respect of Survey No.556, Sheet NO.142 of
Mouza- Nagpur which was issued by City Survey Officer Nagpur-1.
The contents in the said Property Card are true and correct and is a
Certified copy issued by the Department.

3. I with my family is living in the said house No. 570, it consists of

ground floor and first floor, that after the boundary wall ( last ) of our
house on the Western side after the said boundary wall there is my
land to the extent of 4 Ft. breadth adjacent to the said wall on the
Western side on Western southern corner there is a Nazul land
adjacent to my land. After, my property there is a road which is named
as “Lal Imali Gali” on western side of my house. I had produced the
Nazul Pad map in the said map the road between house of Asgar Ali
S/o. Mulla Ibrahim and house of Asgar Ali road is shown which is
having breadth 8.5 Ft. which is shown in the said pad map, the said
map is obtained by me from City Survey Office and is a certified copy.
The contents therein are true and correct.

At present the said lane which admeasures 8.5 Ft. as shown in

the map there is a house of Eastern side of the said road which
belongs to us. Whereas, the non applicants are having their house
situated on Western side of the said lane. That, I had sought copy of
Index Map, but I could not get the same from City Survey record as
Index map had become ruined. The copy of receipt of payment made
to City Survey Department with an endorsement dated 2.2.2009 is
produced by me, which was issued on an application preferred by me
to get the Certified copy of the Index Map.

3. That, the house of the non applicants No.2 to 6 bearing Mpl.

House No. 131-A Old, 301-A New and 13-B old and 301-B New in
Circle No.18/13 is situated adjacent to the Lal Imali Gali on the
Western side, the said Lal Imali Gali runs North south and touches
the Bhandara Road which runs East-West. The non applicant No.2 is
a Partnership firm and non-applicants NO.3 to 5 are its partners. That,
as per Revenue record Survey No.851 is owned by non applicant
No.6. The non applicant No.1 is a local authority who had to control
the construction erection, re-erection, alteration, removal of building in
the City of Nagpur and is done under the provisions of the then
Building Control Rules Bye-laws and the then Provisions of City of
Nagpur Corporation Act. The Corporation has to control the illegal
construction carried out within the jurisdiction of its limits and the non
applicants are making construction illegally without obtaining any
sanction which is within the control of the area of non applicant NO.1.

4. That, the non applicant had obtained a sanction map vide

permit No. 160/DEP/01 on 31.3.95 bearing Plan No.216/EPR, the
said permit and plan is issued as per terms and conditions. I had
produced the certified copy of the said building permit and copy of the
certified copy of sanctioned plan. The Corporation had disallowed the
construction of building which is shown in the said sanction map.

5. That, we have filed R.C.S.No. 924/95 which was decided on

19.02.2012 I had produced the copy of said judgment and we had
preferred the Reg. Civil Appeal before the District Judge,Nagpur,
which is pending before this Hon’ble Court.

6. That, in the year 1995 when construction was started as some

construction was illegally done, even we had filed proceeding
U/Sec.286(5) of C.N.C.Act, but same were not decided on merits, as
we had filed the suit at the said instance and was pending but the
non applicant had filed revision challenging the notice No.41/EPS
dated 26.5.95 which was dismissed by the Dy. Municipal
Commissioner on 08.2.96. I had produced the Certified copy of the
order on record. That, though the revision is dismissed the
Corporation had not taken further action pursuant to said notice for
removal of said illegal construction as per the said notice issued on
26.5.95.

7. That, I had produced the certified copy the measurement map

issued by the City Survey Department, in the said map also land
adjacent to Survey No.556 after the lane, there is open Nazul land,
which is shown to be encroached by holder of City Survey No.851 i.e.
by non applicants.
8. I say that, non applicants, do not hold any document of title of
ownership of the land adjacent to the lane which is on the western
side of the property owned by us. That, even under the sanction plan
non applicants are restrained to make any construction on the rear
side of the house i.e. on the eastern side of the house of non-
applicants.

9. That, when earlier proceedings were still pending non

applicants without obtaining any sanction for construction and
obtaining any sanction plan or permission again re-started digging the
earth adjacent to the Western wall on the southern corner of our
house and immediately erected pillar and started the construction and
we on the said date itself by letter informed the said fact to the non
applicant No.1 at their Gandhibag Zone NO.6 Office. I had produced
the endorsed copy of receipt of said letter, the contents in the said
letter are true and correct, it bears my signature and it is office copy of
which original is produced with the non applicants.

10. That, by 18.3.2007 the non applicants erected the pillars

touching the wall of the applicants without leaving any marginal space
on the land owned by applicants and Nazul Department. That, on
18.3.2007, I issued telegram to the non applicants, the copies of said
telegram is produced by me on record. The non applicants replied the
said Telegram informing that they are not making any construction
and no illegality is committed by them. The contents of the said reply
are false. I had produced the copy of reply on record which was
received by me from the telegraph department.

11. That, on 20.3.2007, I again issued notice cum representation to

the non applicant No.1, I had produced the Office copy of the said
communication, which bears my signature, the contents of the said
communication are true and correct. I had also produced the
acknowledgement in respect of receipt of the said notice, the contents
of the said notice are true and correct. We had sought immediate
action for removal of illegal, unauthorized construction adjacent to the
land owned by us and construction being done by non applicants
No.2 to 6.

12. I further say that, after erection of Pakka building made up of

pillars and concrete slab besides the same, even a Tin shed is
erected, which is also illegal and is constructed without obtaining any
permission or authority to construct the same. That, the person,
whosoever had made construction had not obtained any permission
from the authority to make said construction at the place where both
these constructions were made.

13. I had produced on record, Photographs of illegal construction

carried on by non applicants which were taken by Suraj Photo Studio
on 18.3.2007, the colour Photo of same is produced by me on record
alongwith the negatives. That, they are in respect of stage of
construction on 18.3.2007, which was illegally started by non
applicants.

14. That, from one of the Photograph I can show that the non
applicants in collusion with non applicant No.1 of construction further
continued by the non applicants in collusion with non applicant NO.1
that the said Photograph was taken on 30.3.2007, the name of the
firm Motilal Radhakisan is shown and in the front of the said
construction boundary, there is open land i.e. Lal Imali Gali and on
the eastern side of the said road one tin shed covered by Plastic and
tins is seen and besides that there is a construction made on concrete
slab and meson is constructing the said wall from the said
Photograph, inspite of issuance of notice. The said construction is
illegal, unauthorized and without seeking any sanction by the
Corporation.
15. I say that, adjacent to the land owned by us as per Sale-deed
no person had obtained any permission to erect or re-erect the
building that no building plan is obtained and no permission is granted
and as there is no sanction plan for said construction, the same also
needs to be required to be removed. That, even the land is not owned
by the non applicants No.2 to 6 were construction is started by them
and as per the sanctioned plan, they are restrained and not allowed to
make any construction over the said land, the said construction made
touching the wall of the non applicants and is on the western side of
the house of the applicant. I say that, Ravindra Tea Stall got renewal
upto year 2013 and notice is issued even to remove the said
construction to him.

16. That, during pendency of the proceedings non applicants had

now even erected concrete slab over the Lal Imali GaIi, which
admeasures 8.5 Ft. in breadth i.e. East –West 8.5 Ft. and about 20
Ft. in breadth i.e. North South, whereby non applicants by making
illegal construction even covered the road by erecting slab over the
same, but non applicant NO.1 in collusion with other non applicants is
not taking any action and removing the said illegal construction and
illegal and unauthorized construction is permitted to be erected and is
not removed only because of collusion of non applicants with each
other. That, though Corporation had admitted in their reply that they
had taken the matter and had issued notice No. 41/EPS for removal
of illegal construction, vide notice NO.NMC/ADTP/MRTP U/Sec. 53(1)
of M.R.T.P.Act U/Sec. 53/Zn-IV/108 on 19.5.2007 to remove
unauthorized construction they had not taken any action of removal
as per the said notice. That, the Corporation is in collusion with non
applicants, as even they are neither producing the copy of the said
notice nor they had taken action and they are permitting the non
applicants to retain the said illegal construction, that I had tried to
obtain the information of action in respect of said notice under R.T.I.
Act, but even no reply is given substantially and Corporation is
avoiding the same by sending the applicant from one office to another
and even inspite of orders passed by this Hon’ble Court had not
produced copy of the said notice. I had produced the copies of the
said applications before the Officers under R.T.I. Act. The contents of
the said letter are true and correct.

17. I say that, the non applicant NO.1 in its reply had not
specifically denied the facts raise in the application and in para No.3
of the reply it is admitted that, the non-applicants had made illegal
construction on the area 2.50 Mtr. X 1.8 Mtr. bith bricks wall and a Tin
shed roof is un-authorizedly constructed and notice was issued to
them on 19.5.2007, but they had not taken any further action for
removal of said illegal construction that as per the reply filed by the
non applicants No.2 to 6, their contentions are false and frivolous.
The Commissioner inspite of dismissal of revision challenging the
notice issued by Corporation is not taking any action against the non
applicants and is not removing the said illegal construction.

18. That, I had immediately brought all the facts to the knowledge
of the non-applicant NO.1 and immediately they are not taking any
action and due to said illegal unauthorized construction we are being
put to immense difficulties, the construction which is erected is totally
in contravention of building bye-laws and provisions of City of Nagpur
Corporation Act and on the public road and land owned by the
present applicant, the non applicants are illegally making
constructions. Thus, by exercising the powers vested with this Court
the illegal construction is required to be directed to be removed by
non applicants No. 2 to 6 and failure to remove the same, the non
applicant No.1 be directed to remove the said illegal construction and
the application with Prayers made therein be allowed and no proposal
for any sanction, extension, modification, alteration in respect of the
said sanction map be granted.
 Hence this Affidavit.

Nagpur

Dated : Deponent

VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents of above paras NO.1 to 18 of affidavit

are drafted upon my instructions and are true and correct to the best
of my personal knowledge and belief. The same have been
understood by me. Hence, signed on this 27.08. 2013 at Nagpur.

I know and identify the deponent.

Advocate DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION,

NAGPUR.

SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO. /2010.

PLAINTIFFS: 1. Dattatraya S/o. Krishnarao Pitale

Aged 46 years, Occ. Business,
2 Rajeev S/o. Krishnarao Pitale
Aged 60 years, Occ. Service,
Both permanent resident of
13, Dandige Layout, Shankarnagar,Nagpur.

// VERSUS //
DEFENDANTS:– 1. Shri Shyamkumar Lalaramji Jaiswal, Major,
R/o 134, Radhe Krushna,
Bajaj Nagar,
Nagpur.

2. Shri Arun s/o Lalaramji Jaiswal, Major

R/o Opposite Dipak Talkies,
Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal,

3 Mrs. Anita w/o Durglalji Jaiswal, Major

R/o 268 C/1, Shriram Sadan,
Rahate Colony,
Nagpur.

4 Mrs. Shalini w/o Shriram Jaiswal, Major

R/o 101, ‘Rameshwaram’, Ramdaspeth,

5 Shri Lalaramji S/o Devideenlalji Jaiswal, Major

R/o Plot No.134, Bajaj Nagar,
Nagpur.

All 2 to 5 also through their constituted attorney

Shyamkumar Lalaramji Jaiswal,
R/o 134, Radhe Krushna,
Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur.

SUIT FOR MONEY CLAIM

(Suit valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.88,69,336/-
and court fee of Rs. /- is paid herewith).
The Plaintiffs above named most humbly and respectfully begs to
submit as under:-
1. That, the Plaintiff NO.2 Rajeev had entered into an agreement
of purchase of an agricultural land bearing field P.H. No.73, area 4.46 HR,
class-1, Khasra No.27, A/c No.56 with Sau. Meerabai Sevanand
Gurharikar, R/o Saoner on 17/7/96. It is submitted that the agreement of
sale was for Rs.4,31,340/- and my client Rajeev paid Rs.1,50,000/- as an
earnest amount and balance consideration of Rs.2,81,340/- was agreed to
be paid to seller at the time of execution of sale deed.

2. That, the defendants are well aware of the fact that both of the
Plaintiffs are real brothers. That, the Plaintiff No.1 Dattatraya was in need
of money, and Defendant no.1 being engaged in lending money on interest
though not holding any valid license Plaintiff No.1 approached defendant
No.1 and defendant No.1 got executed one promissory note in lieu of loan
being given to plaintiff NO. 1 on 25/9/98 to the tune of Rs.4,54,000/-. It is
submitted that Plaintiff No.1 had agreed to repay the said loan within a
period of 6 months but for the reasons known to defendant No.1 that
plaintiff No.1 could not arrange the amount as plaintiff No.1 was in financial
crisis Plaintiff No.1 could not repay the same immediately as agreed.

3. That, the amount given to Plaintiff NO.1 was @ 17% p.a. interest and
as he was unable to pay Defendant no.1, defendant No.1 calculated the
interest on the said amount and by 25th March, 2000 the said amount has
increased to the tune of Rs.5,80,883/-. It is submitted that, when the
amount was increasing because of non-payment defendant No.1 was
insisting Plaintiff NO.1 that he should give some collateral security for due
repayment of the said loan amount or otherwise he should immediately
make the payment but the financial position of Plaintiff No.1 was not
permitting him to make the payment of loan taken from Defendant no.1 nor
he was having any suitable property with him which can be given as a
security towards repayment of the said amount.

4. That, it was sole transaction of Plaintiff No.2 with Meerabai who had
agreed to purchase the agricultural land as his separate property, he from
time to time as per need of Meerabai paid the remaining consideration to
her. However, for some reason or the other only formality of execution of
final sale deed remained to be performed.

5. That, in the year 2000 the sale deed in his favour in respect of the
land purchased by him was due to be executed on insistence of defendant
NO.1 for having security of defendants’ amount given as a loan to Plaintiff
NO.1 an agreement of sale was shown to be executed in favour of Plaintiff
NO.1 of the year 1996 with Meerabai so that the said purchased agricultural
land because of insistence of Defendant no.1 can be given in security as it
was a formal document towards loan. It may be seen that in fact as
Meerabai had received whole consideration amount she was ready to
execute any document in the year 2000 as she had received the
consideration amount from Plaintiff NO.2 and as per instructions of Plaintiff
NO.2, she was not having any grudge to execute the document as per
wishes of Plaintiff NO.2. It may be seen that only after the said document
of agreement of sale was replaced by name of Plaintiff NO.1 defendant
No.1 got executed an agreement of sale in your favour on 2 nd June, 2000
wherein seller was shown as Mrs. Meerabai and defendant no.1 was
nominally shown as a purchaser and said agreement clearly indicates that
Plaintiff No.1 was to purchase the said land from Meerabai.

6. It is pertinent to note that Meerabai had obtained loan from banks

and other financial institutions and since agreement in defendant NO.1’s
favour executed by Meerabai was nominal, bogus and never intended to be
acted upon and it was executed as security of loan obtained by Plaintiff
No.1. It was clear in the mind of defendant no.1 as well as Plaintiffs and
Meerabai that it is Plaintiff NO.2 Rajeev is real purchaser and therefore
even after execution of said nominal document dated 2 nd June, 2000, loan
of Meerabai was paid by Plaintiff NO.2 and he obtained necessary No dues
certificate. That, on the said date even Plaintiff NO.2 had taken all pains to
clear the amount of loan of bank on the said land which he agreed to pay to
Meerabai in lieu of loan taken by her over the said land.

7. That, after entering into an agreement of sale towards security of the

said amount on 2nd June, 2000 defendant no.1 was again insisted on the
said day itself that along with agreement of sale he must hold some power
of attorney on behalf of seller Meerabai so that the transaction would be
binding on Meerabai so also Plaintiff NO.1 and thus Irrevocable Power of
Attorney was also got executed from Meerabai in favour of defendant no.1
to which Plaintiff NO.1 is a witness and all the said transactions were
completed on 2nd June, 2000 as defendant no.1 was very much behind
obtaining security for the said amount seeing the condition of Plaintiff No.1
that he is not in a position to repay the said amount.

8. It is submitted that Plaintiff NO.2 could have paid the said amount
directly to defendant NO.1 and could have closed the loan account of
Plaintiff No.1 but as he had also invested his all money and paid the
amount to Meerabai he was not having any surplus amount with him to
overcome the difficulties faced by Plaintiff No.1 and as a real brother just as
it was a mere transaction of security as suggested by Plaintiff NO.1 to
Plaintiff No.2 he agreed for giving his property as security to defendant no.1
on defendant insistence taking into consideration financial position of
Plaintiff NO.1.

9. That, the above two documents i.e. agreement of sale and power of
attorney were executed by Meerabai in defendants’ favour nominally with
understanding between defendant no.1 and plaintiffs as well as Meerabai
that Plaintiff NO.1 will repay defendant loan within a period of months from
2nd June, 2000 and thereafter Meerabai as well as defendants would
destroy these documents and thereafter Meerabai will execute sale deed in
favour of Plaintiff No.2. It is pertinent to note that even after period of 6
months Plaintiff No.1 could not repay defendant loan. Thereupon, after said
period of 6 months was over by 2 nd January, 2001 defendant started
insisting that in situation like this if defendant instigate Meerabai to cancel
power of attorney, property will be lost. Under these circumstances, a
separate agreement and understanding was reached between defendant
no.1 and Plaintiff with Meerabai that sale deed from Meerabai should be
obtained by defendant no.1 and thereafter same should be sold in favour of
any suitable purchaser and out of said sale defendant no.1 will first take
principal amount as well as interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of execution
of sale deed and balance amount will be paid to Plaintiff No.2 but Plaintiff
had no other option but to accept the proposal given by defendant and in
this way by two different sale deeds Meerabai was allowed to sale
ostensible land in favour of defendant no.1 to the extent of Five acres and
in favour of defendant no.1’s mother namely Duliabai Lalaramji Jaiswal to
the extent of 5 acres. The sale deeds were executed on 24/1/2001 for
consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- each which will show that land which was
worth Rs.4,31,000/- on 17/7/96 was shown to be sold after almost period of
5 years for less consideration of Rs.Three lakh which will show that real
nature of sale deed was nominal and was outcome of understanding
scheme of repayment of loan as agreed by Plaintiffs mentioned supra.

10. That, thereafter, entire responsibility of finding out suitable purchaser

and get amounts of loan recorded and to pay balance consideration was on
defendant No.1. as per understanding mentioned supra. However,
defendant no.1 from time to time informed plaintiffs that since agricultural
lands are being fetching higher price one should wait in order to even find
out suitable purchaser and due to long financial transactions which were
almost continued between Plaintiff NO.1 and defendant No.1, Plaintiffs had
full faith on defendants and in this way defendants were allowed to retain
land in favour of their name as well as in the name of defendant no.1’s
mother Duliabai till the year 2005.

11. That, in the year 2005 Plaintiff’s mother became sick and Plaintiff
was under financial distress and was in need of money for treatment and for
operating her as it was detected that she had brain tumour and huge money
was required for the same. In this way, Plaintiff approached defendants
and requested defendant NO.1 to sell the land and after settling the
amount of interest and principal, pay balance to plaintiffs for treatment of
their mother. Defendant No.1 assured Plaintiff that defendant will
immediately take steps to find out suitable purchaser and will get his loan
and interest amount reimbursed and pay balance consideration to Plaintiff,
however, defendant failed to pay single pie to Plaintiff and in this way
Plaintiffs’ mother expired without getting proper treatment on 30/5/06.

12. That, after completing rituals of funeral and other necessary rites and
ceremony which are to be done after death, Plaintiff was under shock for
certain period. Thereafter, after recovery of said shock Plaintiff approached
defendant with a request to complete the said transaction, however,
defendant thereafter started giving evasive replies and therefore for the first
time in the month of January, 2007 Plaintiff suspected that defendant no.1
is trying to befool plaintiff and therefore plaintiff started making search in
Government records in respect of acts done by him. Thereafter, from
Patwari of the village plaintiff got knowledge that defendant had sold
property to one Sau. Saroj Ramesh Rander by executing sale deed dated
15/4/2006 by defendant no.1 for consideration of Rs.55 lakhs in her favour
and by another sale deed dated 20/7/06 executed by heirs of deceased
Duliabai for consideration of Rs.55 lakhs. It is thus clear that property
purchased by defendant in the year 2001 for Rs.3 lakh was sold by
defendant for Rs.1.80 crores. In fact, Plaintiff No.1 had to pay you
Rs.4,54,000/- w.e.f. 25/9/98 to 23/1/01 @ 17% p.a. which comes to
Rs.6,63,759/- and @ 24% p.a. from 24/1/01 to 15/4/06 which comes to
Rs.14,66,905/-. In this way, Plaintiff No.1 was liable to pay defendant NO.1
Rs.21,30,664/-.

13. That, Plaintiffs have reliably learnt that in fact defendants had
received Rs.1.80 crores and sale deed is nominally shown for reduced
consideration of Rs.1.10 crores. defendants thus defrauded not only
plaintiff NO.1 forcing the payment to be made to Plaintiff but also the State
Government by concealing proper consideration and thereby avoided to
pay proper stamp duty to State Government and proper income tax and
property gain tax.

14. That infact even if value of sale as per the Sale-deed is taken into
consideration the defendants ought to have repaid amount of
Rs.88,69,336/- to the Plaintiffs after completion of sale transaction, but the
defendants failed to pay the said amount irrespective of repeated oral
demands and notice being sent to them. Thus the plaintiffs are constrained
to file the instant for recovery of the same.

15. PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:-

i) Money claim of Rs.88,69,336/- alongwith interest

16 That, the cause of action to file the instant suit arose on 20/07/2006
when the defendants executed the Sale-deeds of the suit property in favour
of prospective Purchaser Smt. Saroj Ramesh Rander. It further arose the
defendants were served with notice of demand for payment of amount
payable to the Plaintiffs after deducting the amount payable by the Plaintiff
No.1 to defendant NO.1. It is thus submitted that inspite of receipt of notice
and to make the payment the defendants fails to comply the same, as the
plaintiffs are constrained to file the instant suit and cause of is continuous
and suit is within limitation from date of seeking money from defendants
after getting the knowledge of Sale by the Plaintiffs in respect of the said
agriculture land.

17. The plaintiff and the defendants are resident of Nagpur and all
transactions were took place at Nagpur and hence this Hon’ble court
has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit.

18. That the suit is valued at Rs. 88,69,336/- and the court fee of
Rs. /- is paid herewith.

19. That the plaintiffs have file the documents as per list and craves
leave of this Hon’ble court to file more documents as and when
required.

20. The plaintiffs state that, no suit or any proceedings are filed by
plaintiff on the cause of action in the present suit before this Hon’ble
court or any other court.
PRAYER:- It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court be
pleased to pass the following decree in favour of
plaintiffs jointly and severally against all the
defendants for:-

1. Grant money decree of Rs.88,69,336/- alongwith

interest against the defendants till realization of the
said amount as was paid by the plaintiffs to the
defendant No.1 ;

2. The suit be decreed with costs against the

defendants; and

3. Any other suitable relief may be granted to the

plaintiff in facts and circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice.

Nagpur plaintiffs

Dated:-

Counsel for plaintiffs

SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
I, Dattatraya S/o Krishnarao Pitale
Aged about 46 years, Occu: Business, R/o 13, Dandige Layout,
Shankarnagar, Nagpur10, , do hereby take oath and states on
solemn affirmation that the contents of above paras no.1 to 20 are
true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief. The
same are drafted by my counsel as per my instructions and also the
same are read over to me in Marathi, which I found correct.

Hence verified and signed on this 22nd day of November, 2010

at Nagpur.

DEPONENT

I know and identify the Deponent.

Advocate
 BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT,
NAGPUR

Regular Civil Suit No. 254 of 2009 F.F. 22/01/2015

Meghraj Golchha (H.U.F.)

.Vs.
Suresh Sood and others.

Deponent: Satish s/o Sardar Golcha,

Aged 60- years, Occu: Business,
R/o Golcha Bhawan, Golcha Marg,

Sadar, Nagpur.

EVIDENCE OF WITNESS NO. 2 ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

I, the above named Deponent, do hereby take oath and states

on solemn affirmation as under:-

1. That, I am of co-owner and landlord and member of Meghraj

Golcha (H.U.F.), I am presently residing in the said Golcha Bhawan at
Sadar, Nagpur at first floor of the said building.

2. That for want of accommodation to do the business from our

own place I had to take the shop on rent and presently I am doing
business in the name of Vidarbha Hardware of which I am proprietor
I do business of Hardware and paint from the said shop which is
situated at Block No. F-7, Anjuman Complex, Sadar, Ward No. 60,
Nagpur. I had produced on record, the registration of my shop with
Bombay Shop and Establishment Act, 1948. The contents therein are
true and correct. It is issued in the name of my Firm/Shop.
 That, I had also produced on record rent receipt of my shop
block issued in the name of my Firm by my owner Anjuman Trust for
the month of …………….

3. Thus our family requires the suit shop block from the which is in
possession of the Defendant to start businesses of our family
members from the said shop block in possession of Defendant and
we require the said premises bonafidely and immediately as we want
to start our business from our own premises. Hence the suit filed by
our family member for constituents of Meghraj Golcha (H.U.F.) be
decreed as prayed for.

Hence this affidavit.

NAGPUR

DATED: 22/1/2015 Deponent

VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents of above paras 1 to 3 of affidavit are

drafted upon my instructions and are true and correct to the best of
my personal knowledge and belief. The same have been understood
by me.

Hence, signed on this 22nd day of January, 2015 at Nagpur.

DEPONENT

I know and identify the deponent.

Advocate
 BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT,
NAGPUR

Regular Civil Suit No. 254 of 2009 F.F. 22/01/2015

Meghraj Golchha (H.U.F.)

.Vs.
Suresh Sood and others.

Deponent: Nitin s/o Gyan Golchha,

Aged 38- years, Occu: Business,
R/o Aashadeep, Opp. Poonam Chember,

Chindwada Road, Byramji Town, Nagpur.

EVIDENCE OF WITNESS NO. 3 ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

I, the above named Deponent, do hereby take oath and states

on solemn affirmation as under:-

1. That, I am son of co-owner and one of the member of Meghraj

Golcha (H.U.F.), I am presently residing at Aashadeep Opp. Poonam
Chember, Chindwada Road, Byramji Town, Nagpur.

2. That for want of accommodation to do the business from our

own place i.e. our premises at Golcha Marg, Sadar, Nagpur I had to
do the business from my own residence presently I am doing
business in the name of Nitin Construction of which I am one of the
partner. I do business of Construction of government contracts. I had
produced on record, the registration of my firm under the Indian
Partnership Act. The contents therein are true and correct. It is issued
in the name of our Firm/Shop. That in fact, my firm also intends to
start the development of agricultural lands and I intend to have office
in the business locality for said work and the shop block in possession
of Defendant is in business locality.

3. Thus, our family requires the suit shop block which is in

possession of the Defendant to start businesses of our family
members from the said shop block which is in possession of
Defendant and we require the said premises bonafidely and
immediately as we want to start our own business from said premises.
Hence the suit filed by our my father as constituents of Meghraj
Golcha (H.U.F.) be decreed as prayed for.

Hence this affidavit.

NAGPUR

DATED: 22/1/2015 Deponent

VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents of above paras 1 to 3 of affidavit are

drafted upon my instructions and are true and correct to the best of
my personal knowledge and belief. The same have been understood
by me.

Hence, signed on this 22nd day of January, 2015 at Nagpur.

DEPONENT

I know and identify the deponent.

Advocate