Counter Affidavit For Restoration Of A Suit Dismissed For Default - Legal Draft

Precedent No. 24

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT: FOR RESTORATION OF A SUIT DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT

BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT,

Interlocutory Application No

In

O.S. No of 20

Applicant/Petitioner:

Vs.

Respondent:

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT of W/o , aged years,

presently and permanently residing in

The deponent abovenamed, hereby solemnly affirms and declares as

follows:—

1. The deponent is the respondent in the accompanying Application

and the defendant in the Suit referred to above. Being well conversant

with the facts and circumstances of the present case, the deponent is

fully competent to swear to this affidavit. The deponent will be

referred to as the respondent hereinafter.

1. There is absolutely no merit, substance, truth or bona fides in

the application for restoration or the affidavit accompanying the same

and the respondent categorically denies as untrue, incorrect and

absolutely baseless all the averments contained therein, save and except

those which are specifically admitted hereunder.

1. Being statements of facts, the contents of paragraphs 1 to 5 of

the affidavit supporting the application for restoration, deserve no

comments.

1. The contents of paragraph 5 are wholly incorrect and true and

denied in toto. It is submitted that notice for depositing notice and

process fee under Order XLI, rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, was duly sent to the applicant and his local counsel from the

Office of the Court

Fee. Office of Civil Court vide dispatch No dated

fixing as the date. It is further submitted that on the

applicant willfully failed to appear in the Court. It is completely

incorrect to say that it was fixed for admission and was dismissed on

default and the applicant received no information about the date of

hearing and that the applicant was totally unaware regarding the same.

On the contrary, the applicant had full and complete knowledge of the

date fixed

i.e as the notice was sent by the Court Fee Officer but did not

appear in the Court on the date fixed.

1. As far as paragraph 6 is concerned, it is submitted that the

applicant hadfull and timely knowledge of the entire proceedings as the

revision was

recommended by the Court Fee Commissioner, in his and his

counsel's presence. It is apparent and adequately clear from the record

of

this Hon'ble Court that notice vide dispatch No

dated was sent to the applicant and that the applicant, inspite of

the notice and knowledge, willfully failed to appear in this Hon'ble

Court on the date fixed.

1. No inspection application to inspect the record of this Hon'ble

Court has been filed on as alleged in paragraph 7 under reply.

1. In view of the aforementioned facts, the claim made by the

applicant is most conspicuously false and fabricated and does not

support any recall

or review and setting aside of the Order dated or to allow the

restoration application.

1. In the circumstances, it is just and necessary that this Hon'ble

Courtmay be pleased to dismiss the application for restoration

withcompensatory costs.

Sd./ Deponent.

Verification

Verified at on this the day of , 20 ,

that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the

best of my knowledge, belief and information and nothing material has

been concealed therefrom.

Sd./ Deponent.

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me by the deponent, who is

personallyknown to me, on this the day of ,20

Sd./

Counsel for the deponent.

Note: Affidavit to be attested by the appropriate authority prescribed

under law. Prayer may be avoided from affidavit and only facts may be

stated therein.