Counter

The contents of the para number one of the petition need no answer. Has it states about the description of the petitioner regarding the pleadings in the plane for which the pleadings of counterclaim may be read as part and parcel of this counter. The contents of the para number two are incorrect. It is false to say that the counterclaim Not at all tenable and maintainable for the reason the property shown in the document is valued at ₹1,61,39,000. The contents of the para number three are incorrect. It is falls to say that the respondent has to pay court fee on 1,61,39,000 and , and for reasons assigned in the petition in the in the para with 124 will not attract the provision of order seven rule 11. The contents of the para number four of the petition are incorrect. It is false that the reason mentioned in para number three and four of counterclaim rejected and regarding filing of the suit by respondent wide number 340 of 2022 needs no answer. It is false to say that the defendant suppressed  The material facts. The contents of the para number five are incorrect. It is falls to say that there is no cause of it is true to say that there is no cause of action to file the above suit. It is also false to say that there is no cause of action to file the counterclaim , as per the as per the suggestion given by the for connection of – the defendant will take steps in amendment of counterclaim. This defendant given notice under order 12 root eight for production of information and documents and the cause of action in encounter Claim is rigid the person or not in acceptance in occupation of the property , the contents of the para number six are falls. The court fee paid encounter. Claim is on 22 lakhs and there is no requirement to pay the court fee on ₹1,61 lakhs and being of the said reason, taking the said the counterclaim cannot be rejected. The contents of para number seven are incorrect , the petitioner and the petitioner advocate has to be forgotten the principle of cancelling the document or to declare the document has null and void to the owner which are created over his property by third parties and owner is not a party to the document for such declaration, no court fee is required under section – – and decided in the judgements  That are given below is not out of the place to mention that the petitioner and is advocate. Also know the same advocate of the petitioner has mentioned this clause and section in many office cases in spite of having the knowledge of the same. The component Jammu file the petition to delay  And grab the property. The contents of the para number eight are incorrect has mentioned in the para number eight of the petition mentioned in para number 127. Please that are mentioned in para number 1 to 7. The petitioner be rejected over otherwise is affidavit as new trend, which intended by petitioners has if it is an appeal by incorporating the plea that other grounds will be , indulged with the agreement , which is not permanent , Petition