C. Hari Shankar, J.

“Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat; But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!”

[The Ballad of East and West – Rudyard Kipling]

The “two strong men” who stand before us, albeit through Counsel, come, not from the ends of the earth, but from the political heartland of the country. Would that our “judgment seat” shared at least some of the divine attributes to which Kipling’s immortal ballad alludes!

The Facts

2. The appellant in FAO 235/2017 is the Chief Minister of Delhi, Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, and the appellant in FAO 234/2017 is Mr. Ashutosh; the spokesperson of the Aam Aadmi party. The respondent, in both these appeals, is the Union Finance Minister of the country, Mr. Arun Jaitley. These are men of stature and accomplishment, regarded and respected by cognoscenti and laity alike. They, and the role they play, are central to the fulfillment, and furtherance, of the hopes and aspirations of millions in this country, who look to them as harbingers of good governance. And yet, there is, unquestionably, between them, a lis, a lis that has formed the grist of tabloid and electronic media mill alike, for over a year now, and it has fallen to our lot to draw the curtain on a short, but significant, chapter thereof.

3. For ease of reference, this judgment refers to Mr. Kejriwal and Mr. Jaitley as “the appellant” and “the respondent” respectively. These appeals are directed against the same order, dated 26th July 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge on an application, being IA 6955/2017, filed by the respondent in CS (OS) 3457/2015.

4. Lowering the recitation to a more pedestrian level, the terminus a quo, of the present controversy, is to be found in CS (OS) 3457/2015, which was filed, on the original side of this Court, by the respondent, against the appellant, on 21st December 2015, claiming damages on the ground that the appellant had defamed the respondent. Written statements, and replications thereto, were filed, and pleadings stood completed by 3rd February 2016. Admission and denial of documents was commenced on 15th March 2016, but was adjourned on 18th April 2016 for want of certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Issues were framed, by the learned Single Judge, on 12th July 2016, on which date an additional written statement was filed by the appellant. Recording of evidence commenced thereafter. The examination-in-chief of the respondent (as PW1) was recorded, by the Joint Registrar on 6th December 2016, and the respondent was cross-examined, by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, thereon, on 6th March 2017, 7th March 2017, 15th May 2017 and 17th May 2017. The matter was directed to be listed, for further cross-examination of the respondent, on 28th July 2017 and 31st July 2017.

5. It was at this stage that, on or around 26th May 2017, IA 6955/2017 (wherein the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge), came to be filed by the respondent, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”). The application voiced serious complaints against the tone and tenor of certain questions (which were, however, not particularized in the complaint itself) put to the respondent by learned Senior Counsel then appearing for the appellant, which, it was sought to be averred, were “ex facie abusive”, “defamatory”, “offensive”, “malicious”, “vicious”, “designed to insult and/or annoy the Applicant/Plaintiff”, having “no relevance with either the dispute in questions or the issues framed by this Hon’ble Court”. (As the proceedings thereafter reveal, it appears that learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant referred to the respondent as a “crook” and “guilty of crimes and crookery” during the proceedings befor