The Delhi High Court on Monday imposed another ₹5,000 as cost on Arvind Kejriwal over delay in filing his reply to a fresh ₹10 crore defamation suit filed by Union Minister Arun Jaitley over use of an objectionable word allegedly by the CM’s former lawyer.
Joint Registrar Pankaj Gupta directed Mr. Kejriwal, who was earlier slapped with ₹10,000 as cost, to deposit ₹5,000 in the ‘Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties.’
The cost was imposed after Mr. Jaitley’s counsel Manik Dogra informed the court that the Chief Minister’s written statement to the suit was filed beyond the time of two weeks granted by this court on July 26.
ADVERTISEMENT
The counsel further submitted that these were delayed tactics on the part of the Chief Minister.
Advocate Rishikesh Kumar, appearing for Mr. Kejriwal, urged the court to condone the delay on the ground that the written statement could not be filed due to certain technical objections raised on two occasions by the High Court Registry.
Taking note of this submission, the Registrar condoned the delay on behalf of the Chief Minister and said the same is “subject to deposit of ₹5,000 costs.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The court has now fixed the matter for October 12.
Meanwhile, Mr. Kejriwal, in his reply to the defamation suit, filed through advocate Anupam Srivastava submitted that the Union Minister’s suit “is liable to be dismissed as no civil action for damages for slander lies for any statement in pleadings or during the conduct of a suit against a party or a witness in it.”
The High Court on May 23 sought response of Mr. Kejriwal on why defamation proceedings should not be initiated against him.
Mr. Jaitley had filed the second defamation suit after Mr. Kejriwal’s then lawyer Ram Jethmalani allegedly “abused” him in open court during proceedings of another defamation suit he had filed against the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief and five other party functionaries.
During the cross-examination of the Union Minister on May 17 before the Joint Registrar in the High Court, Mr. Jethmalani had allegedly used a term Mr. Jaitley had found objectionable.
A day after, another high court judge, who was hearing a connected matter, had termed as “scandalous” the remarks allegedly made by Mr. Jethmalani against Mr. Jaitley before the Joint Registrar.