The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party Spokesperson Sanju Verma, who sought the rejection of a defamation suit against her by Congress leader Shama Mohamed, Live Law reported on Tuesday.

In an order on August 6, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that there were no grounds to reject the defamation suit. The issues raised by Verma pertained to matters that are to be examined during the trial and cannot form the basis for its rejection, Kaurav said.

The civil suit for defamation filed by Mohamed pertained to allegedly defamatory statements made by Verma about her during a television news show on August 20, 2024, Live Law reported.

In her application, Verma argued that no cause of action had arisen for Mohamed to institute the defamation suit.

The Congress spokesperson was a resident of Kerala, the BJP leader said. However, the memo of parties filed in the suit showed Mohamed as a resident of Delhi while the affidavit executed indicated that she is a resident of Kerala, Verma added.

The inconsistencies in the pleadings were unacceptable and rendered Mohamed’s case untenable, she argued.

In its August 6 order, the court noted that the defamation suit mentions that the debate containing the alleged defamatory statements against Mohamed was shared by several third parties on social media platforms.

The court said that the defamation complaint “on the face of it fulfils the necessary ingredients of the pleading” as required under Order VI and Order VII Rule 1(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Live Law reported.

While Order VI governs pleadings in general, Order VII Rule 1(e) requires that a complaint must state the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose.

The court said that the communications that had been placed on record would prima facie indicate that “third parties had [begun sharing] the said defamatory statement against the plaintiff”, according to Live Law.

A cause of action had arisen for Mohamed to institute the civil suit for defamation, the judge observed, adding that the Congress leader was also a resident of Delhi.

“On the purported inconsistency with respect to the contents of the plaint and the affidavit of the plaintiff, the same seems to be that the plaintiff has residences both in Delhi and in Kerala and that the affidavit mentioned both,” Live Law quoted the order as saying.

It added: “But when the affidavit is considered in the right perspective, the same also mentions that the plaintiff also resides at Delhi. Additionally, the plaintiff has also brought on record various documents including the lease deed etc. to indicate that the plaintiff is residing in Delhi.”

The judge said that the ingredients for invoking the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court were prima facie met. Mohamed was entitled to institute the suit in Delhi, the court added.

The order said that Verma can establish facts, including that “maximum damage occurred elsewhere, that the plaintiff is in fact resident outside Delhi, or that the cause of action arose where any of the primary defendants reside”, during the course of the trial.

📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC

Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting