 "Arun Jaitley's defamation suit against Kejriwal and others further delayed")
The Delhi High Court yet again heard a technical plea raised by the defendants in an ongoing Rs 10 crore defamation suit filed by the current finance minister Arun Jaitley against the Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and five others today.
Jaitley had approached the High Court in late 2015 after allegations of corruption were leveled against him by Kejriwal and the others alleging unjust enrichment through his association with the Delhi & District's Cricket Association.
The issue in today's hearing was restricted to interim applications contesting the admissibility of averments made by Jaitley in a replication filed by him against written statements furnished by the defendants earlier in court. The main contention of the defendants was that the replication filed by Jaitley contained new facts, which were not part of the initial plaint.
He further contended that such a replication if allowed would severely prejudice the defendants, as averments made would form uncontested evidence since the replication could not be answered to without the leave of the court, calling the move an attempt at a surreptitious backdoor entry.
Jaitley's lawyer vehemently opposed the defendant's stance and argued that no new facts were attempted to be introduced in the replication and all the allegations made were already enshrined in the plaint and merely summarised in the document in question.
He further stated that the present applications made by the defendants were merely another attempt to stall the ongoing proceedings and were based on no substantive grounds for rejection of the replication under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The nature and technicality of the current objections were referred to by the presiding Justice Vipin Sanghvi as 'hairsplitting'. Commenting on the general trajectory of the trial till now, the Justice said the matter needed to be dealt with in a manner like any other and not differently, "Just because these are leaders (Jaitley and Kejriwal) fighting it (their political and personal grudges) out."
After consideration of the arguments advanced,the court allowed the defendants to file a rejoinder to the contested portions of the replication in order to reconcile their grievances andtentatively listed the matter again for early July.
Jaitley had approached the High Court in late 2015 after allegations of corruption were leveled against him by Kejriwal and the others alleging unjust enrichment through his association with the Delhi & District's Cricket Association.
The issue in today's hearing was restricted to interim applications contesting the admissibility of averments made by Jaitley in a replication filed by him against written statements furnished by the defendants earlier in court. The main contention of the defendants was that the replication filed by Jaitley contained new facts, which were not part of the initial plaint.
More From This Section
According to Kejriwal's lawyer, this was a violation of the principles of civil procedure of the courts and such new facts, including facts to substantiate documents earlier submitted, could be made only through an application for amendment of the initial plaint and not through such a replication.
He further contended that such a replication if allowed would severely prejudice the defendants, as averments made would form uncontested evidence since the replication could not be answered to without the leave of the court, calling the move an attempt at a surreptitious backdoor entry.
Jaitley's lawyer vehemently opposed the defendant's stance and argued that no new facts were attempted to be introduced in the replication and all the allegations made were already enshrined in the plaint and merely summarised in the document in question.
He further stated that the present applications made by the defendants were merely another attempt to stall the ongoing proceedings and were based on no substantive grounds for rejection of the replication under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The nature and technicality of the current objections were referred to by the presiding Justice Vipin Sanghvi as 'hairsplitting'. Commenting on the general trajectory of the trial till now, the Justice said the matter needed to be dealt with in a manner like any other and not differently, "Just because these are leaders (Jaitley and Kejriwal) fighting it (their political and personal grudges) out."
After consideration of the arguments advanced,the court allowed the defendants to file a rejoinder to the contested portions of the replication in order to reconcile their grievances andtentatively listed the matter again for early July.