IN THE HONBLE COURT OF DR.

RAKESH KUMAR, ASCJ (CENTRAL), TIS

HAZARI, DELHI
C.S. NO. 588 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF:CH. RAMSWAROOP WRESTLING CLUB
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S. BIRLA TEXTILES LIMITED AND OTHERS
DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 READWITH SECTION 151 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NO.2
FOR REJECTION OF THE SUBJECT SUIT
That the Defendant No.2 above-named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:1.

That the plaintiff has filed the subject suit against the Defendants, wherein
alleging that the land in question belongs to the Defendant No.5 and used
as akhara, and the Defendant no.1 to 4 are falsely claiming to be owners
of the same by virtue of exchange deed dated 13.02.1954, and hence
sought the relief of declaratory decree, whereby declaring that the land in
question is property of the Defendant No.5, decree of mandatory
injunction for allowing the plaintiff club to carry wrestling activities at the
land in question and decree of permanent injunction, whereby restraining
the Defendant No. 1 to 4 from taking physical possession of the land in
question.

2.

That further the present suit is not maintainable in veiw of Section 34 of

the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and according to which a suit for declaration
can be filed by only those persons, who are entitled to any right to any
property, and that right has been denied by the other party. That
admittedly the Plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the land in
question, hence has no right of what so ever nature over the same to
claim any relief from this Honble Court and on this account alone the
subject matter is liable to be rejected by this Honble Court.

3.

That the land in question is situated alongside the wall of Nagar Nigam
Kanya Vidyalaya, F Block, Kamla Nagar, Delhi 110 007 and
admeasuring 371.5 sq. yards. That initially around 225.5 sq. yards of the
land in question was owned by M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving
Mills Limited and rest 146 sq. yards of the land in question was owned by

MCD. That MCD and M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills
Limited had agreed to exchange the plots of land in order to regulate their
boundaries and complete construction of straight roads and infact M/s.
Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited paid an amount of Rs.
8,411/- for equality of exchange, and the said exchange was duly
approved by the Delhi Municipality in its resolution bearing no. 653 and
duly registered in Exchange Deed dated 15.09.1954, which was duly
registered as document bearing no. 8049 in book No. 1, volume no. 2856
on pages 345 & 362 on 23.09.1954. That during the said exchange, the
said area of 146 sq. yards was given to M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and
Weaving Mills Limited, and hence M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving
Mills Limited became owner of the land in question. That by virtue of order
dated 03.01.1983, passed by the Honble High Court of Delhi in company
petition bearing no. 59 of 1982 and order dated 20.12.1982, passed by the
Honble High Court of Calcutta in company petition bearing no. 191 of
1982, the Defendant No.2 herein acquired all rights and title of the land in
question, and hence became owner of the same, and acquired possession
of the same from M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited.
That since then the Defendant No.2 is owner and in possession of the
land in question, and the Plaintiff has no right of whatsoever nature in the
land in question and hence the subject suit is liable to be rejected by this
Honble Court in favour of the Defendant No.2 and against the Plaintiff
herein.
4.

That in the month of March, 1984, late Shri Raghubar and his sons
unsuccessfully tried to break the boundary wall of the land in question and
the matter was reported to the police and later on to the concerned SDM
by the Defendant No.2. That the concerned SDM sealed the land in
question and vide its order dated 27.12.2001, the concerned SDM
appointed the SHO, PS Roop Nagar, Delhi as custodian of the land in
question. That the order dated 27.12.2001 was challenged by the
Defendant No.2 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Delhi and vide order
dated 08.09.2005, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the
SHO, PS Roop Nagar, Delhi to handover the land in question to the
Defendant No.2. That the order dated 08.09.2005 was challenged by late
Shri Raghubar before the Honble High Court of Delhi by filing a criminal
revision petition bearing no. 4732 of 2005 and the Honble High Court
dismissed the said petition vide its order dated 04.01.2013 and hence
further affirming the direction, contained the order dated 08.09.2005. That
the Defendant No.2 has regained its possession of the land in question

under the order dated 04.01.2013, passed by the Honble High Court of
Delhi in Crl. Revision petition bearing no. 4732 of 2005, filed by late Shri
Raguhbar, and on this account alone, the subject matter is liable to be
rejected by this Honble Court.
5.

That that Ch. Ramswaroop expired in 1970 i.e. around 44 years ago and
there was no club in existence in the name of Ch. Ramswaroop Wrestling
Club till the filing of the subject suit, and hence the motive of forming the
said club is only to file the subject civil suit, which is based upon false and
misconceived averments, and hence liable to be rejected by this Honble
Court.

6.

That the Plaintiff club is not registered body under any law and hence has
neither recognized legal entity nor competent to file the subject suit, and
on this account alone, the subject suit is liable to be rejected by this
Honble Court. That the plaintiff is an illegal club formed after unsuccessful
attempt of Late Shri Raghubar and his sons to get illegal possession of the
land in question.

7.

That late Shri Ramswaroop never did wrestling in his life and further Late
Shri Raghubar and his sons, with oblique motive and after unsuccessful
attempt of getting the possession of the land in question, have filed the
subject suit on false and frivolous grounds under the grab of so called club
before this Honble Court.

8.

That admittedly the land in question was sealed by the concerned SDM in
1984 and in 2001, the concerned SDM handed over the same to SHO, PS
Roop Nagar, and recently on 22.04.2013, the Defendant No.2 has got
possession of the same after passing of order dated 04.01.2013 of the
Honble High Court of Delhi from the SHO P. S Roop Nagar, on
22.04.2013. That for last 30 years, no activities of what so ever nature are
going on the land in question, and hence there is no question of using the
land in question as akhara, and on this account alone, the subject suit is
liable to be rejected by this Honble Court in favour of the Defendant No.2
and against the Plaintiff herein.

9.

That the present suit is not maintainable and liable to be rejected as the
reliefs of declaration and injunction are discretionary reliefs and therefore
a party seeking such relief must show that it has some equities in its favor
or possesses some right which the other party is trying to invade or there
is an obligation contractual or otherwise in its favour which the opposite

party is trying to commit breach of. That in the present case, the Plaintiff is
miserably failed to show any kind of equities or right in its favour and
which the Answering Defendant is trying to invade or breach, and hence
the subject suit is liable to be rejected by this Honble Court.
10.

That the subject suit is highly undervalued as the Plaintiff is seeking

declaratory decree for the land in question without affixing the court fee on
the value of the land in question and further the value of the land in
question is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this Honble Court, and hence
this Honble Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the
subject suit, and which is liable to be rejected by this Honble Court.

11.

That the subject suit is meritless and without any cause of action in favour
of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff was never in possession of the land in
question and hence liable to be rejected by this Honble Court.

12.

That the Defendant No.3 and 4 are the same person and was official of
the Defendant No. 2 and representing the Defendant No.2 before the
various Forums, being its authorized person. That to the knowlegde of the
Defendant No.2, there is no company in the name of M/s. Birla Textile
Limited. It is submitted that alongwith the exchange deed dated
13.09.1954, a detailed site plan was also filed before the Sub-registrar
office, Delhi, showing the portions of land in question exchanged inter-se,
and which infact nullify the allegations of the Plaintiff in the subject matter.
It is further submitted that the document, filed by the Plaintiff is forged,
fabricated and false document and cannot be relied by this Honble Court
in any circumstances.

13.

That the Defendant No. 2 has been constrained to file the present
application under order VII rule 11 of CPC as the present suit doe not
disclose the cause of action, the reliefs are undervalued, and the suit is
not maintainable, hence barred by provisions of the Specific Relief Act,
1963, and liable to be rejected by this Honbe Court.

14.

That the present application is being filed bonafidley and may be allowed
in interest of justice.
PRAYER

IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES STATED HERE IN ABOVE AND IN

THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED BEFORE THIS
HONBLE COURT THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY PLEASED TO:-

(a)

Pass an order, whereby rejecting the

subject suit in favour of the Defendant No.2
and against the Plaintiff;

(b)

Pass an order, whereby directing the

Plaintiff to pay the cost of the subject
proceedings to the Defendant No.2 and in
that behalf;

(c)

Pass an order or any other orders, which

this Honble Court may deems

DEFENDANT NO. 2
FILED THROUGH
D&V LEGAL
ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS
[DHRUV KAPUR/VIJAYENDER KUMAR]
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT NO. 2
D-360, GROUND FLOOR, DEFENCE COLONY
NEW DELHI 110 0024
DATE

IN THE HONBLE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR, ASCJ (CENTRAL), TIS

HAZARI, DELHI
C.S. NO. 588 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF:CH. RAMSWAROOP WRESTLING CLUB
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S. BIRLA TEXTILES LIMITED AND OTHERS
DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Radhey Shyam Sharma, S/o Shri Ram Ratan Sharma, aged 52 years, R/o
11/3, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi 110 007, and working with the Defendant No.2,
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under.
1.

That I am the Senior Officer (Legal and Taxation) of the Defendant No.2
and fully competent to swear and affirm the present affidavit.

2.

That the accompanying application under order VII rule 11 readwith

section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on behalf of the Defendant
No. 2, is drafted under my instructions and the contents of the same are
true upon my knowledge, received and based upon the records,
maintained by the Defendant No.2 during the normal course of its
business. That nothing material is concealed therefrom. That the legal
averments contained therein are true upon advice received and believed
to be true.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at Delhi on this . day of July 2013, that the contents of the above
affidavit are true upon my knowledge and nothing material been concealed
therefrom.
DEPONENT

IN THE HONBLE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR, ASCJ (CENTRAL), TIS

HAZARI, DELHI
C.S. NO. 588 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF:CH. RAMSWAROOP WRESTLING CLUB
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S. BIRLA TEXTILES LIMITED AND OTHERS
DEFENDANTS
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NO.2

SR. NO.

DETAILS

PAGE NO.

COPY OF RESOLUTION BEARING NO. 653 OF

DELHI MUNICIPALITY AND EXCHANGE DEED
DATED 15.09.1954, ALONGWITH THEIR TYPED
COPY

COPY OF ORDER DATED 08.09.2005

COPY OF ORDER DATED 04.01.2013

COPY OF SITE PLAN

COPY OF GPA AND BOARD RESOLUTION

DEFENDANT NO. 2
FILED THROUGH
D&V LEGAL
ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS
[DHRUV KAPUR/VIJAYENDER KUMAR]
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT NO. 2
D-360, GROUND FLOOR, DEFENCE COLONY
NEW DELHI 110 0024

DATE