Delhi High Court
Mr Arun Jaitley vs Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors on 26 July, 2017
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 3457/2015
MR ARUN JAITLEY ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Rajiv Nayar and Mr.Sandeep
Sethi, Sr.Advocates with Mr.Manik
Dogra, Advocate.
versus
MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS ..... Defendants
Through Mr.Anoop George Chaudhari and
Mrs.June Chaudhari, Sr.Advocates
with Mr.Anupam Srivastava and
Ms.Sumeeta Chaudhari, Advocates
for D-1.
Mr.Sanjay Hegdey, Sr.Advocate with
Mohd. Irsad, Advocate for D-2 & 3.
Mr.Sanjay Parik with Mr.Kamal
Jindal, Advocates for D-4 & 6.
Mr.Anand Grover, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Avi Singh, Ms.Tripti Tandon and
Mr.Jaskaran, Advocates for D-5.
% Date of Decision: 26th July, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
CS(OS) 3457-2015 Page 1 of 6
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
I.A. 6955/2017
1. Present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking expeditious
recording of the evidence in a time bound manner. The plaintiff also seeks a
direction to the effect that the recording of evidence is conducted in an
orderly, fair, dignified and bona fide manner.
2. Learned senior counsel for plaintiff states that in the cross-
examination conducted on behalf of defendant no.1, the plaintiff has been
asked numerous irrelevant and ex facie scandalous questions. He states that
certain questions have been ex facie abusive, defamatory with a clear design
to insult and/or annoy the plaintiff.
3. Learned senior counsel for plaintiff further states that during the
cross-examination on 17th May, 2017, the counsel for defendant no.1 had
used the abusive, offensive and per se defamatory words like "crook" and
"guilty of crimes and crookery" against the applicant/plaintiff. He points
out that the applicant/plaintiff has already filed a separate suit against the
defendant no. 1 herein for damages, being CS(OS) No.236/2017 for the said
malicious insinuations.
4. He states that out of 100 questions put to the plaintiff, 24 questions
have been disallowed by the Joint Registrar till date. He also states that on
17th May, 2017, of the seven questions asked by the counsel for the
defendant no. 1, the Joint Registrar had disallowed the five questions. This,
according to him, proves that the attitude and intention of the defendants is
to delay the conclusion of the evidence. He further states that the counsel
representing defendant no.1 has attempted to browbeat, intimidate and
scandalize the plaintiff.
5. Per contra, Mr.Anoop George Chaudhari, learned senior counsel for
defendant no.1 states that the present application is misconceived as the
present suit is moving at a pace faster than most of the suits pending on the
original side of this Court. He further states that a perusal of the order sheet
would reveal that the defendants have never delayed the proceedings in the
present suit and in the garb of present application the plaintiff cannot be
permitted to scuttle the process of cross examination
6. Mr.Chaudhari emphasizes that the defendant no.1 vide his letters
dated 02nd June 2017 and 19th July, 2017 informed his Advocate on Record
and previous senior counsel that no instructions had ever been given at any
point of time to use the objectionable words like "crook" and "guilty of
crimes and crookery" against the plaintiff.
7. He lastly submits that as the proceedings before the Joint Registrar for
recording of evidence has been delegated by the Original Side Rules of the
Delhi High Court, no cause of action arises for any interference by the
delegator (High Court) in the proceedings going on before the delegatee
(Joint Registrar).
8. In rejoinder, Mr.Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff
points out that the previous senior counsel for the defendant no.1 had stated
before the Joint Registrar on 17th May, 2017 that he had called the plaintiff
"crook" on the specific instruction of defendant no.1. He prays that notice
be issued to the previous senior counsel of defendant no.1.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the
view that cross-examination is to be conducted in accordance with law and
the dignity of the Court has to be maintained. No person who has invoked
the jurisdiction of this Court can be subjected to offensive, scandalous
and/or abusive language in the garb of cross-examination.
10. Since the Joint Registrar is recording the evidence under the
supervision of this Court as a delegatee of this Court, if a witness or party is
subjected to abuse or humiliation during the process of cross-examination,
the Court can surely intervene.
11. Questions in cross-examination can be put only in the course of
administration of law. Indecent, scandalous and abusive questions are
prohibited even under the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the
„Act‟). This Court is further of the view that the liberty of free expression
cannot be confused with licence to make unfounded, unwarranted and
irresponsible aspersions.
12. However, as the defendant no.1 has now filed a reply accompanied by
an affidavit stating that he had not instructed his senior counsel to use the
words like "crook" and "guilty of crimes and crookery" against the plaintiff,
this Court (with consent of Mr. Anoop George Chaudhari learned senior
counsel for defendant no.1) declares the said questions/expressions "crook"
and "guilty of crimes and crookery" against the plaintiff as indecent and
scandalous in accordance with Section 151 of the Act.
13. This Court may mention that it is not enquiring as to whether the
previous senior counsel for the defendant no.1 had called the plaintiff
"crook" and "guilty of crimes and crookery" on his own or on instruction of
the defendant no.1 as the plaintiff has already instituted a second suit being
CS(OS) No.236/2017 with regard to use of aforesaid expressions/
insinuations. Needless to say the said issue will be examined in CS (OS)
236/2017.
14. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the defendant no.1 states and
assures this Court, on instructions of his client, that only relevant questions
would be put to the plaintiff in future during the cross-examination and no
indecent or scandalous questions shall be put to the plaintiff and the plaintiff
shall not be subjected to abuse and/or humiliation in the present
proceedings.
15. The statements and assurances given by learned senior counsel for the
defendant No.1 is accepted by this Court and the defendant No.1 is held
bound by the same.
16. Recording such statements, assurances, findings and liberty, the
present application is disposed of. If the aforesaid statements and
assurances are breached, the aggrieved party is given liberty to approach this
Court.
17. This Court may mention that Mr.Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel
for the plaintiff has prayed during the proceedings for a relief under Section
150 of the Act in view of the reply-affidavit filed by defendant no.1.
However, as there is no such pleading or prayer in the present application,
the plaintiff is given liberty to file a separate application with regard to the
said relief. Needless to say, the same shall be considered in accordance with
law.
CS(OS) 3457/2015 & 7371/2017
At the request of Mr.Chaudhari, learned senior counsel for defendant
no.1, who states that he has been recently engaged, the date for cross-
examination before the Joint Registrar is deferred to 28th and 29th August,
2017 at 2.00 PM. The Joint Registrar is directed to expedite the trial.
The Joint Registrar is also directed to allow only the Advocates who
are appearing in the present case to be present in the Court Room.
The date fixed before the Joint Registrar i.e. 28 th and 31st July, 2017
stands cancelled.
MANMOHAN, J
JULY 26, 2017
KA
