Saket Court, New Delhi: After YouTuber Dhruv Rathee moved an I.A. under Section 151 read with Section 26(2) read with Order 6 Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) and under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in a defamation suit filed by BJP’s Mumbai spokesperson Suresh Karamshi Nakhua against Rathee’s video titled ‘My Reply to Godi Youtubers’, Gunjan Gupta, J., while issuing notice, sought reply on the applications and directed to put up a reply and arguments on all the applications on 20-09-2024 at 02:00 PM.
The inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of CPC were invoked on grounds:
- Verification of the pleadings are in contravention to Section 26(2) r/w Order VI Rule 15 (3) of CPC.
-
Affidavits with each and every application and the Plaint are not properly sworn and verified, hence are defective affidavits, and thereby hold no probative value in the eyes of law.
It was alleged that Dhruv Rathee defamed Suresh Nakhua on public platform, hence, he sought compensation from him and to restrain him from posting defamatory content against Nakhua.
Previously, the Court issued summons to Rathee, Google LLC and X Corp.
An application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was moved by Mr Nakul Gandhi on behalf of Dhruv Rathee for rejection of the plaint on the ground of no cause action and that the plaintiff/ Nakhua miserably failed to disclose any cause of action against Rathee. It was submitted that in the impugned video, Rathee stated only facts, and those facts are evidently clear from the twitter post of Nakhua, which are in public domain, and no personal opinion was shared by Rathee.
It was also submitted by Rathee’s counsel that the application under Section 149 of CPC should be disposed of as the Court fee was not paid, and until and unless proper Court fee is filed, the matter cannot be proceeded with. Upon noting plaintiff’s submission of filing of Court fees within time, the Court directed him to file proper Court fee within a week.
[Suresh Karamshi Nakhua v. Dhruv Rathee, CS DJ 578/24, decided on: 27-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the plaintiff: Advocate Dinesh Sharma
For the defendant: Senior Advocate Satvik Verma, Advocate Nakul Gandhi, Advocate Mujeeb, Advocate Shantanu
So the video was truthful but it was expunged? Why? I did not understand the article. Legal stuff can be written clearly!
It is difficult to file a case against international thug. They have lot of legal support ready from top to bottom.