IN THE COURT OF MS.

, CIVIL JUDGE,

PATIALA HOUSE
CS NO.

OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF
JASWANT SINGH

PLAINTIFF
VERSUS

KULJEET SINGH

DEFENDANT

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT / COUNTER

CLAIMANT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH ,
1. That the plaintiff and the defendent entered into an agreement dated
20/4/2014 wherein the plaintiff agreed to sell his Ford Icon No. DL/4C-AF0713 and defendent agreed to buy the said vehicle for a consideration
amount of Rs. 3,65,000. The defendent also paid 40,000 in advance to the
plaintiff
which was to be returned within 6 months from the date of
agreement. But the plaintiff did not return the said amount of Rs. 40,000 to
the
defendent till date.
2. The said vehicle was hypothecated with ICICI Bank for which loan amount
was to be repaid to ICICI Bank in monthly installments of Rs. 9315 till March
2010. According to the agreement the defendant had to deposit monthly
installment of Rs. 9315 in the saving Bank A/c No. 8116 bank of Baroda.
3. That at the time of agreement the due loan amount was Rs. 3,52,363.39/to the ICICI Bank in monthly installments of Rs. 9315/-

4. That the defendant honoured the terms and conditions of the agreement
and paid 41 installments of the loan amount.
5. The loan amount started from Dec. 2006 till March 2010. But sale
agreement with the defendant /counterclaimant was signed on 20/4/06 .
Therefore defandant was liable to pay installment from 1/5/06.
6. The plaintiff had financial crisis therefore cheques issued by the plaintiff in
favour of ICICI Bank to repay the loan amount got bounced from the 2nd
installment. As the plaintiff was unable to repay the loan instalment therefore
he decided to sell the said vehicle. He contacted defendant who was also looking
for to buy a car for his taxi business. It is pertinent to mention here that plaintiff
and defendant both were running taxi business. Defandant has nothing to do
with bounced cheques as he was supposed to pay his installment from
1/5/06 i.e sixth installments because the agreement was signed 20/4/06.
7. Plaintiff had melafide intension from the beginning only to extort money
from the defendant/counterclaimant .
8. The plaintiff filed a frivolous recovery suit of Rs. 1,60,075 i.e rs. 1,04,000
at the time of booking of car and rs. 56,075 mentioned in para 9 of the
plaint.
Which is totally frivolous. The loan account state of plaintiff for find perusal
of this Honble court which makes it clear that all the installments were
deposited in time.
The plaintiff did not place any proof on record to prove that those
installments are deducted by ECS from his account.
9. Defendant is not supposed to pay Rs. 1,04,000 to the plaintiff as the
defendant is not concerned with the said amount which was paid at the time
of booking of the said vehicle and it is also not mentioned in the agreement.
The defendant followed the terms and conditions of the agreement and
honestly paid the instalments. As per agreement first instalment which is sixth
instalment of of plaintiff was paid in the saving a/c of plaintiff in Bank of Baroda.

After that the plaintiff introduced one Ravi Kumar , an agent of ICICI Bank to
collect loan amount from defendant. There fore defendant paid 41 instalments in
to repay the loan amount.
10. the plaintiff did not return rs. 40,000/- to the defendant within six months
as per agreement. The defendant requested plaintiff several times to return Rs.
40,000/- but he did not pay any heed to the request of the defendant.
11. Most of all the suit is barred by limitation as the amount claimed in
para 9 is due amount of year 2006-2007 and suit was filed in the year
2012. There fore the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
12. The plaintiff claimed amount of Rs. 56,075 mentioned in para 9 of the
plaint which is totally false. As per agreement the defendant claimed amount
Sr. No.

amount Rs.

date

1.

9315

17.01.2007

2.

9315

15.02.2007

3.

9315

09.07.2007

4.

9500

15.04.2006

5.

9315

06.06.2006

9315

02.06.2006

The defendant paid all the instalments which is clear from the loan account
statement of the plaintiff attached along with written arguments. All the
receipts of the instalments are attached along with written statement of the
defenedant / counter claimant. No instalment is deducted through ECS from the
account of the plaintiff.

13. the plaintiff had never sufficient balance in his account which could be
deducted by ECS. The account statement of the plaintiff of Bank of Baroda is on
record funds insufficient is on the record for kind perusal of this honble court.

14 the defendant / counter claimant paid 41 instalments of Rs 9315/- each , the

total of which is Rs. 3,81,915/-. the defendant also paid Rs. 40,000/- in advance as
per agreement . Therefore the total amount paid by the defendant was Rs.
4,21,915/-. But the said vehicle was sold for consideration amount of Rs.
3,65,000/15. The defendant / counter claimant has already paid Rs. 69,552/- in excess of the
sale consideration amount.
The counter claimant / defendant is entitled to claim of Rs. 69,552/- from the
plaintiff/defendant.
The cost of counter claim be also awarded to the defendant / counter claimant

The suit of the defendant being false and frivolous be dismissed with heavy cost
I

According to agreement defendant was supposed to pay Rs. 3,65,000/- which

was Consideration amount of sale of care which was to be paid in monthly
instalment Of Rs. 9315/-.
11. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 1,04,000 + 56,075. Total amount 1,60,075 which
is false and claimed to extort money from the defendant.
Defendant has nothing to do with amount Rs. 1,04,000 which was paid by
the paintiff at the time he booked car and it was not mentioned in the
terms and conditions of agreement daed 20/4/2006 ( Agreement on record )

The rest of amount claimed Rs. 56,075 never deducted by ECS from the
a/c of plaintiff as defendant had already paid instalments for the months
mentioned in the para 9 of the plaint.
12. Initially deft deposited installments in the A/c no. 8116 of B. B. in the
plaintiff as per agreement later on pl. introduced one Ravi Kumar, an agent
of ICICI bank who collected installment amount and gave receipts. All receipts
on record.
13. Therefore the plaintiff had filed a false and frivolous suit. He is not
entitled to any amount claimed in the plaintiff therefore the recovery suit be
dismissed with heavy cost to the plaintiff because the plaintiff