accused has given his reply
notice to the demand notice issued by the Complainant. In
his reply notice at Ex.P7 the accused ... denied the very case put forth by the Complainant by
giving para-wise reply. In this reply notice no specific
defense has been taken
side, the reply notice given by the
accused, but PW.1 has admitted in his cross examination
about the issuance of reply notice ... asserted by the complainant. In his
reply notice by giving para wise reply and thereafter in para
No.7 it is stated that, the disputed
denied the entire
case of the Complainant by giving para wise reply interlia
contended that, the accused do not know the Complainant.
The Complainant might
denied the entire
case of the Complainant by giving para wise reply interlia
contended that, the accused do not know the Complainant.
The Complainant might
this reply notice, entire
transaction has been denied by giving para wise reply. In
order to substantiate and prove this defense taken in the
beginning ... other hand, on scrutinizing of
entire cross examination of PW.1 in para No.3 of page No.5,
it is suggested that, the accused
submitted
6
M.A.(E.A.T.No.19/2016
para wise reply for averments made in the memorandum
of appeal. Further, respondent
disputed the entire case
of the Complainant by giving para wise reply interlia
contended that there is no iota of truth as alleged in your ... probabilities. In the reply notice at Ex.P15 it is the specific
defense of the accused in para 5 & 6 contending that,
when
wherein he has denied entire case of the
complainant by giving para wise reply interalia has
contended in para No.6 and 7 that
termination notice dated
18.01.2022. On receipt of the notice, defendants issued a reply,
but, they did not vacate the premises. The deceased plaintiff,
therefore ... properly valued and the court fee
paid is insufficient. In the para wise reply the defendants No.4
and 5 have admitted that
accused has given reply to the
demand notice issued by the complainant. In the reply
13 C.C.3906/2019 ... notice, the accused denied the claim of the complainant by
giving para wise reply inter alia contending that, he had a
transaction with one Utthaman
