In the
court of 1st Joint District
Judge, Chittagong
Other suit no:
96/2013
Md. Abdullah
S/o: Md.Rafique
331, Khatunganj,
Kotwali, Chittagong
…………………………………………………………………..plaintiff
VS
Md. Ushain
S/o Rahim Ali
Babysuper Market,
Mubarok Vhila, P.S: Panchlish,Chittagong
……………………….……………………………………………Defendant
Written statement on
behalf of the defendant
The above named
defendant begs to submit as follows……………
1.
That the suit is not maintainable in law
either in its present form or in any other form.
2.
That the suit is barred by limitation.
3.
That there is no cause of action for
this suit and alleged causes have been manufactured to harass the defendant.
4.
That the statement and allegations made
in the plaint, so far specifically and categorically not admitted, shall be
deemed to have been denied by the defendant and the onus of proof shall lie
upon the plaintiff.
5.
That the suit is hopelessly barred by
the principle of estoppel, waiver acquiescence.
6.
That it is true that the plaintiff and
defendant were engaged in business in shops side by side at Khatunganj,
Chittagong. It is also true that there were a friendly relationship between the
two parties as stated in para-1 of the plaint.
7.
That it is not true that the defendant
fell into financial crisis and borrowed TK. One lakh from the plaintiff on
09.04.13. It is also not true that the defendant issued a cheque and it was
dishonored in the United Commercial Bank at Khatunganj Branch at the same day as
stated in para-2 of the plaint. The defendant thoroughly deny this statements.
8.
That it is not true the facts stated in
para-3 of the defendant could not overcome this financial crisis. He came to
the plaintiff and proposed to sell the schedule land purchased by his father.
After a long bargaining between the two parties the plaintiff agreed to
purchase it. In pursuance o which a registered contract for sale being no-1000
was made between plaintiff and defendant on 08.05.15 duely signed and executed
by the defendant in front of P.W.2 viz: Md. Salauddin, P.W.3 viz: Md. Abdullah,
P.W.4 Shahin Sultana. It is not also true that as per said contract the suit
land was valued at taka = 10, 00,000(Ten lac) out of which was five lac paid to
the defendant by the plaintiff as earnest money. The defendant strongly denies
this statement.
9.
That it is not true that the facts stated
in para-4 of the plain that the plaintiff requested the defendant in several
times during two months to receive the rest taka 5, 00000 lakh and to execute a
registered sale deed of the schedule land and are false and is hereby strongly denied.
10.
That it is not true that the facts
stated in para-5 of the plaint that the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the
defendant on 08.08.13 calling upon the defendant to execute sale deed in favor
of the plaintiff on accepting the balance amount of contract money and refused
to do so over phone on 22.08.13 that defendant thoroughly deny this statement.
11.
That it is not true that in para-6 of
the plaint that schedule land is necessary for the plaintiff’s business and
also that plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss if he does not get it are
baseless and is hereby denied.
12.
That the true fact is that beside the
business at Khatungangj, the defendant was also engaged in construction business.
The plaintiff proposed the defendant to include him in the construction
business, but they refused at first. After repeated requests by the plaintiff
the defendant at one stage agreed to include him only in a particular business
in order to give him an opportunity to gather experience in the presence of his
partner. In return, the plaintiff lent an amount of taka one lakh to the
defendant on 08-03.13 as a token of friendship. Out of this one lakh taka
defendant has returned taka of fifty thousand in cash on 08.04.13 and was
always ready to refund the rest taka fifty thousand. At the time of lending the
taka one lakh, the clever plaintiff, technically received two blank stamps signed
by the defendant in the presence of D.W.2, D.W 3 and D.W. 4. In the meantime,
the plaintiff has become hostile towards the defendant because of not including
him in their construction business.
On
18.04.13 the defendant came to know that the plaintiff has abused the blank
stamps given by defendant. Understanding plaintiff’s malafide intention the
defendant filed a G.D no-40 in the nearest Panchlish police station on 05.05.13
regarding the blank stamps on. Later on 08.05.13 the defendant further came to
know that the plaintiff has made a forged agreement for sale regarding the suit
land by using one of the two above stated blank stamps signed by them. In fact,
no bargaining regarding the sale of the suit land was held with the plaintiff
or any other person and as such there arises no question of execution of any
agreement for sale or receipt of earnest money thereof. The so-called agreement
for sale in the name of the plaintiff executed by the defendant is forged one
and therefore there arises no question of its being specifically enforced. The
plaintiff cannot get any relief on the basis of this forged agreement.
13.
That the defendant humbly prays that the
plaintiff is not entitled to get any decree and the suit is liable to be
dismissed with cost.
Verification
Whatever facts have
been stated above are true to my knowledge. I sign this verification this day on
24.10.13 at 10.00 am is in the court premises, Chittagong.
Defendant
The
deponent is known to me and signed before me.
Advocate
Judge
Court, Chittagong
Name of the Witnesses
1.
Md.Ushain
2.
Mohammad Rubel
3.
Jhuma Dev
4.
Nasrin Akter
Post by: Riajuddin Ovi
No comments:
Post a Comment