ARUN JAITLEY Vs. ARVIND KEJRIWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by defendant no. 6/applicant to seek rejection of the plaint qua defendant no. 6. Learned senior counsel for defendant no. 6/applicant has primarily made two submissions. Learned counsels for the plaintiff have appeared on advance notice and countered those submissions.

(2.) The first submission of Mr. Phoolka is that, qua defendant no. 6, there are no specific averments made in the plaint alleging the making of any defamatory statement by him against the plaintiff. It is submitted that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff to seek the relief of damages against all the defendants including defendant no. 6/applicant, on the premise that the defendants had made defamatory statements in relation to the plaintiff.

(3.) Mr. Phoolka points out that in paragraph 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has set out the several statements attributed to the other defendants made on various dates beginning 15.12.2015. However, qua defendant no. 6, there is no such averment to be found in the plaint. Mr. Phoolka submits that since there is no specific averment made qua defendant no. 6 in the plaint, the documents relied upon by the plaintiff - in relation to the statements attributed to defendant no. 6, can also not be looked into for the purpose of consideration of the present application. It is submitted that apart from the plaint, it is only the documents which are referred to in the plaint which could be looked into, to ascertain whether - on the reading of the plaint and documents referred to, a cause of action is disclosed against a particular defendant. In this regard, he places reliance on the observation made by this Court in Arunesh Punetha v/s. Boston Scientific Corporation & Ors., : 2006 (3) AD (Del) 141. He particularly relies on the following observations made in paragraph 8 of the said decision: