Defamation suit: Delhi HC asks Kejriwal, Azad to file written replies

The DDCA had filed a civil defamation suits against the two leaders for their alleged remarks against the cricket body's functioning and financing

The Delhi High Court today asked Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and suspended BJP MP Kirti Azad to file their written statements in a civil defamation suit of Rs 5 crore filed by DDCA for their alleged remarks against the cricket body regarding its functioning and finances.

Joint Registrar Anil Kumar Sisodia directed Kejriwal and Azad to submit their statements within 30 days after they failed to file it today on the ground that the two had not received the fully copy of the suit.

"The counsel for the defendent number 1 and 2 (Kejriwal and Azad) appeared on the summons issue to them and submitted that they have not received the full documents. Plaintiff (DDCA) is directed to supply the copy to the defendants within a week from today."

"The defendants shall file their written statements (to the suit filed by DDCA) within 30 days after receiving the full documents. The DDCA will file replication (the response of a plaintiff to the defendant's plea in an action at law, or to the defendant's answer in a suit) within four weeks thereafter. The parties shall file the original documents from ten weeks from today after exchanging the same," the court said.

It also directed that the affidavit of admission/ denial of documents shall be filed within 12 weeks from today and put up the matter for completion of pleadings and admission/denial of documents on July 7.

The court's direction came during hearing of Delhi District Cricket Association (DDCA)'s civil defamation suit in which Kejriwal and Azad were issued notice on January 15 for filing their written statements.

DDCA, through its counsel advocate Sangram Patnaik, had said that Kejriwal "with prior motive, indulged in certain false, shocking, scandalous, defamatory, baseless, slanderous, malicious, disgraceful and outrageous statements which are defamatory against them".

The counsel had said that Azad also indulged in making such statements, "which were made solely with an agenda to defame and cause harm to the plaintiff(DDCA), for self-serving and motivated reasons".