9/10/21, 7:56 PM Mr Arun Jaitley vs Mr.

Arvind Kejriwal & Ors on 26 July, 2017

Mobile View
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

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78741699/ 1/3
9/10/21, 7:56 PM Mr Arun Jaitley vs Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors on 26 July, 2017

"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
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78741699/ 2/3
9/10/21, 7:56 PM Mr Arun Jaitley vs Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors on 26 July, 2017

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

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78741699/ 3/3