defence disclose that the allegations are general in nature. Except for the use of the words “false” and “fabricated”, the defendant has not pleaded as to each verbal misrepresentation or occasion thereto. Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC is of a distinct category in law, requiring pleading with specificity, particularly and precision. The averments are wanting in the pleadings of the fact of misrepresentation and fraud which the plaintiff could meet. It is not the mere use of the general words such a „fraud‟ or „collusion‟ that can serve as a foundation for the plea. Such expression are quite ineffective to form a legal basis when denuded of a particular statement of facts which alone can furnish the requisite basis of the action. The averments made in the written statement in my opinion, do not set out with reasonable precision, the particulars, so as to constitute allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. In view of the same, I came to the conclusion that defendant have failed to prove their plea of documents being false and fabricated as alleged which till the balance of probability scale in the favour of the plaintiff. 12. PW-1 has further deposed that the defendant was not having cordial relations with her husband and she was given residence orders qua the first floor of the suit property in proceedings under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. The copy of order is Ex.PW1/18. He has further deposed that thereafter, defendant alongwith her husband Sh. Hukum Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration titled “Hukum Singh vs Sonwati” against Smt. Sonwati, Gopal, Manu, Usha, Poonam and plaintiff thereby declaring the documents executed by them be declared null and void against the plaintiff and with a prayer not to take the forcible possession of the suit property; that the plaintiff herein filed written statement in the said suit thereby denying all the averments of the plaint and stated that the defendant and her husband were only in possession of first floor and not whole of the suit property; that the said suit was dismissed by the Court of Sh. Vikrant Vaid, ACJ, Saket Courts, New Delhi wherein it was held by ld. Judge that the defendant was not in possession of whole of the suit property and was only in possession of first floor; that after the dismissal of the said case the defendant and her associates began obstructing the passage of the plaintiff into the suit property. Copy of the plaint, written statement and judgment are Ex.PW1/19, PW1/20 and PW1/22. None of these fact has been disputed from the side of defendant.
