RAM JETHMALANI Vs. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in this application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short Civil Procedure Code), has prayed for rejection of the suit on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action and that the suit is barred by Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952 (for short the Act).

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this application are that the plaintiff filed suit for damages of Rs. 50,00,000.00 against the defendant alleging that on 20/10/1993 the Commission of Inquiry setup by the Government of India to investigate the circumstances relating to the assassination of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi under the Act, addressed a letter to Ms. Jayalalitha (the then Chief Minister, Tamil Nadu), stating that the Commission would like to know if she had anything to say about the information furnished by the defendant Which was quoted in the letter. The plaintiff was briefed as a Senior Counsel to appear for Ms. Jayalalitha, to conduct the cross-examination of the defendant and to urge that no case for summoning her before the Commission was made out. The defendant was cross-examined and the matter was argued by the plaintiff strongly opposing the request made by the defendant to summon Ms. Jayalalitha before the Commission for her cross-examination by the defendant. After the plaintiffs submissions were over, the defendant tiled before the Commission "written submissions" which were read out in the Court and also circulated to the press. It is further alleged that in the written submissions, the defendant made malicious and false, per se libellous accusation against the plaintiff with an intent to damage his personal, political and professional reputation. After the pleadings were completed, on 12/10/1998 issues were framed. Issue No. 1 was framed with regard to the maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, which reads as under:

(3.) When the issues,were framed, the defendant prayed that Issue No. 1 be tried as a preliminary issue. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the prayer was declined. The suit was listed for trial. Against this order the defendant filed an appeal, which was dismissed by me Division Bench on 18/12/1998. The defendant then preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6518/99 against the said order, which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20/7/1999. Thereafter, on 23/9/2000 the defendant moved the present application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same is based on his deposition before the said Inquiry Commission, which is barred by Section 6 of the Act. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the application read as under: