The replication should contain averments and evidence in support of the original cause of action and be the plaintiff’s answer to the defendant’s plea in the written statement.

MANMOHAN, J.

I.A. 13011/2017

1. Present application has been filed under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC for striking off the preliminary submissions in the replication filed by the plaintiff. The preliminary submissions of replication sought to be expunged by the defendant by way of the present application are as under:-

"6…It was only after the notice was issued by this Hon’ble Court on 23.07.2017 and summons were served on the Defendant on 06.06.2017, that the Defendant, in order to concoct a moonshine defence in the instant proceedings, speciously wrote to his senior Advocate on 20.07.2017 allegedly denying his specific instructions.

7. It is stated that the aforesaid belated denial of the Defendant has been categorically rejected by the Senior Advocate representing the Defendant in CS (OS) 3457 of 2015. In an interview to The Times of India on 26.07.2017, the said Senior Advocate has stated as under:

“……….Jethmalani told TOI,

“Kejriwal has written a letter to me. I have replied to that. I am not going to divulge the details of either of the letters. You ask Kejriwal to make public both the letters. I have promised him not to make it public.”

………..

During such conversions, Jethmalani alleged in his letter, Kejriwal had used even more objectionable words against Jaitley. The alleged use of derogatory words by Kejriwal during the conference appeared to have made Jethmalani repeat them during the May 17 proceedings before the HC registrar in the first defamation suit”

(Emphasis Supplied)

………………………………………………………………..

8. Subsequently, in an interview to Asian News International, posted on their Facebook page and available at http://www.facebook.com/ANINEWS.IN/videos/13043 66586342768, the said Senior Advocate has reiterated his earlier statements that he had received instructions from the Defendant to use the said ex-facie defamatory words against the Plaintiff. The said Senior Advocate has specifically stated that the Defendant has “spoken a lie… He has given me instructions…. I have recorded it.”

9. On 28.07.2017, the said Senior Advocate wrote a letter to the Defendant and copied the same to the Plaintiff. In the said letter, the Senior Advocate has stated that he had written a letter to the Defendant on 20.07.2017 and had not received any reply to that letter. He further stated that he published his letter of 20.07.2017 on his blog/website. This letter is available at http://ramjethmalanimp.blogspot.in/. In his letter dated 20.07.2017, the Senior Advocate representing the Defendant in (unnumbered) Page 3, 2nd Paragraph has stated as follows:

………………………………………………………………..”

10. It is respectfully submitted that the belated denial of the Defendant has been rubbished by the Senior Advocate representing the Defendant. It is evident that the aforesaid denial by the Defendant is not only concocted but also malafide to the Defendant’s knowledge. The unqualified and definite statements of the said Senior Advocate in the series of statements to press and his letters categorically establishes that it was the Defendant who had given specific instruction to his Senior Advocate to use the ex facie and per se defamatory words against the Plaintiff……

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

13. Further, if the said Senior Advocate had made the said defamatory statement without specific instructions of his Client, i.e. the Defendant herein, the Defendant ought to have registered a complaint against the said Senior Advocate with the Bar Council. The fact that the Defendant has not lodged any complaint or taken any other action against the Senior Advocate, solidifies the fact that he had instructed the said Senior Advocate to use defamatory words against the Plaintiff.

14 …….the Senior Advocate representing the Defendant in CS(OS) 3457 of 2015 has voluntarily waived any lawyer-client Privilege on 17.05.2017 itself during the cross-examination in CS(OS) 3457 of 2015. He further waived any alleged privilege on 26.07.2017 (in his interview to The Times of India); on 2