Court dismisses Kejriwal’s petition for hanging off sure submissions made by means of Jaitley in the second one defamation swimsuit
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday junked Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petition for hanging off sure submissions made by means of Finance Minister Arun Jaitley to end up his case that he used to be known as a “crook” and “guilty of crimes and crookery” by means of his former recommend all through cross-examination in a defamation swimsuit emanating out of allegations of corruption within the Delhi District Cricket Association (DDCA).
Justice Manmohan pushed aside the applying moved by means of Kejriwal praying the courtroom to expunge sure initial submissions within the replication filed by means of Jaitley in the second one defamation swimsuit which got here to be filed by means of the Union minister after being known as ‘crook’ by means of senior suggest Ram Jethmalani, then showing for the AAP chief, within the DDCA defamation subject.
However, as Kejriwal’s recommend had said that he has now not had the potential of rebutting the paperwork referred to within the replication, the courtroom accredited him to record an extra written commentary inside of 4 weeks.
It is to be famous that Jaitley had, in his replication, submitted that: “It was only after the notice was issued by this Hon’ble Court on 23.07.2017 (in second defamation suit) and summons were served on the Defendant (Kejriwal) on 06.06.2017, that the Defendant, in order to concoct a moonshine defence in the instant proceedings, speciously wrote to his senior Advocate (Jethmalani) on 20.07.2017 allegedly denying his specific instructions (to call him a crook)”.
Jaitley had additionally referred to Jethmalani’s interview printed in The Times of India to mention that Jethmalani had voluntarily waived the lawyer-client privilege, now not simplest all through the pass exam on 17th May, 2017 itself, but in addition due to this fact in his interview to The Times of India information portal in addition to his letter addressed to the plaintiff. Herein, he claimed to have gained directions from Kejriwal to make use of the defamatory phrase in opposition to Jaitley and that he had used way more objectionable phrases for him. He had additionally submitted that if Jethmalani had made such observation with out Kejriwal’s wisdom, then the latter must have made a grievance in opposition to him with the Bar Council of India.
Kejriwal’s present recommend senior suggest Anoop George Chaudhari stressed out that Jaitley had exploited the potential of submitting the replication for the aim of introducing new allegations of defamation to make out a recent case along with the case set out within the plaint.
He contended that Jaitley, by means of bringing within the further / new details within the replication, supposed to ‘rob’ Kejriwal of an opportunity to record a respond to the allegations made.
Chaudhari additional submitted that the following allegations represent a reason behind motion throughout the which means of Order 7 Rule 1(e) CPC and therefore, the similar must were integrated by means of modification of the plaint somewhat than uploading the similar ‘circuitously’ within the replication.
He depended on Anant Construction (P) Ltd vs Ram Niwas, by which it used to be held that, “Any subsequent pleading inconsistent with the original pleading shall be refused to be taken on record and if taken, shall be liable to be struck off and taken off the file”.
Meanwhile, Rajiv Nayar, senior recommend for Jaitley, submitted that the pleas within the replication have been neither inconsistent nor at variance with the unique pleadings.
The courtroom analysed the scope and ambit of Order 6 Rule 16, CPC, which supplies that “the court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court”.
While regarding the apex courtroom case titled Abdul Razak vs Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and Others, Justice Manmohan stated, “This court is of the view that the pleadings can be ordered to be struck off under Order 6 Rule 16, CPC only if they are shown to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or abuse of the process of law or if they amount to re-litigation or tend to embarrass the defendants in the trial of the suit.”
The courtroom famous that Kejriwal had himself relied at the letter he had written to Jethmalani on July 20, denying any explicit directions to make use of the defamatory phrases within the cross-examination.
“In the opinion of this Court, the plaintiff, in its replication, has neither made out a new case nor a fresh cause of action or enlarged the scope of the suit. In fact, the replication in the present instance contains averments and evidence in support of the original cause of action as mentioned in the plaint and is the plaintiff’s answer to the defendant’s plea in the written statement…,” stated Justice Manmohan.
“The pleas in the replication are not inconsistent or at variance with the original pleadings,” he held, including that neither Order VI nor Order VII CPC has been violated within the provide example.
“In reality, the averments within the replication crystallize the plaintiff’s stand on the most important factor and are related to the case handy. Consequently, replication can neither be termed as scandalous nor frivolous or vexatious or pointless or abuse of means of legislation,” he stated.
Read the Judgment Here