J JAYALALITHAA Vs. NAKHEERANGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) HEARD the submissions made by Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan, learned counsel for the applicant/third defendant and Mr. P.T. Perumal, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant would make his submissions based on the above said contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Application. Apart from the said two grounds raised in the affidavit, no other new ground has been urged in addition to the submissions made repeating and reiterating the contentions raised by the applicant in the affidavit filed in support of the prayer made in the Application. THE learned counsel further contended that the action taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Karnataka and also the attempt made by the respondent/plaintiff to get one of the TADA accused discharged from the charge by withdrawing the charge against him in a case pending before the Mysore Special Court were strongly criticized by the Apex Court. But the judgment in which such critical remarks were made has not been placed before this Court. It is true that the learned counsel for the respondent does not deny the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the matter of withdrawal of the charge against a TADA accused before the Special Court, Mysore, the Honourable Apex Court took exception and came heavily upon the authorities besides setting aside the order permitting withdrawal of the charge. THE same, at best, be a piece of evidence to justify the statement published as an answer to the claim made in the Suit. But it cannot be the basis on which rejection of the Plaint can be sought for.