The plaintiff's replication in a defamation suit did not introduce new pleas, and the defendants had sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Vipin Sanghi, J.

I.A. Nos. 4868/2016 (by defendant No. 5), 4869/2016 (by defendant No. 4), 4870/2016 (by defendant No. 6), 4871/2016 (by defendant No. 3), 5160/2016 (by defendant No. 1) & 2206/2016 (by defendant No.2 )

All the aforesaid applications have been filed by the respective defendants as mentioned herein above under Order 6, Rule 16 CPC with the prayer that the several pleadings made by the plaintiff in his respective replication to the individual written statement of the applicant/defendant be struck of.

2. Since the nature of the reliefs sought in all these applications is the same, and they are premised on, more or less, the same submissions, I have heard common submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and proceed to dispose of these applications by this common order.

3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit to seek damages with the allegation that the defendants have made libellous, scandalous and false allegations against him, by which he has been defamed and suffered damages. The plaintiff sets out in paragraph 3 of the plaint that all defendants individually and collectively have undertaken a false/malicious and defamatory campaign/propaganda against him and his family members, which has reached everyone within and outside India. He states that “this is clearly calculated, engineered and designed by all defendants between them for gaining political mileage and other unwarranted benefits at the cost of causing irreversible damage to the plaintiff”. The plaintiff states in paragraph 4 that the said false/malicious and defamatory campaign/propaganda against him and his family members is a counterblast to a CBI search of a bureaucrat in the Secretariat of Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 15.12.2015. He states that “Apparently, this malicious propaganda of false and baseless allegations is not only with a view to deflect the incident of CBI search of a bureaucrat but is also an orchestrated malafide design for ulterior political motives of the defendants against the plaintiff”.

4. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has set out some of the statements made to, and carried by the print and electronic media, by the defendants individually and collectively allegedly in the course of the malicious campaign. In paragraph 11 of the plaint, the plaintiff, inter alia, states that:

“That defendants individually and collectively – moving further with their ulterior political malafide designs further created an impression ... ...”

5. In paragraph 16 of the plaint, the plaintiff states that:

“By all acts of omission and commission by the defendants including making false, baseless, scandalous, malicious statements/allegations against the plaintiff-they have made themselves liable individually and collectively for the irreversible and unquantifiable damage caused to the plaintiff. All defendants, individually and collectively have made themselves liable to compensate the plaintiff by a sum of Rs. 10 crores.”

6. The plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs. 10 Crores from the defendants. There are six defendants in the suit. Each of the defendants has filed his own individual written statements. It is not in dispute, and is a matter of record that all the written statements are on the same lines.

7. The plaintiff was permitted to file replication upon filing of written statement by the defendants vide order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the learned Joint Registrar. Individual replications were filed to each of the written statements, and it is also not in dispute that, in substance, each of the replications is the same, with minor differences.

8. The submission of the defendants/applicants in each of the present applications is that while filing replications, in para 4 under the heading, ‘Preliminary Submission’, the plaintiff has sought to introduce fresh pleas for the first time, so as to allege the making of libellous/slanderous statements and allegations by the defendants, which di