DDCA defamation case: Kejriwal seeks minutes of meeting to confront Jaitley

According to the application filed by Kejriwal's counsel Anupam Srivastava, the matter is at the stage where Jaitley is being cross-examined. Further cross-examination of the BJP leader was listed for July 28 and 31.

Written by Manish Raj | New Delhi | Published:July 8, 2017 4:49 am
DDCA defamation case, Arun Jaitley, Arvind Kejriwal, Kejriwal Jaitley, indian express, India news, Latest new Arun Jaitley (L) and Arvind Kejriwal (R).

Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal filed an application in the Delhi High Court seeking certain records from officials concerned of the Delhi District and Cricket Association (DDCA), in order to “confront” Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley during his cross-examination in the defamation suit. The BJP leader filed the case against Kejriwal and five AAP leaders, seeking Rs 10 crore as damages.

Issuing notice to Jaitley, Joint Registrar Pankaj Gupta sought a reply to the application by July 28. According to the application filed by Kejriwal’s counsel Anupam Srivastava, the matter is at the stage where Jaitley is being cross-examined. Further cross-examination of the BJP leader was listed for July 28 and 31. For this, Srivastava said Kejriwal requires certain records from the “official concerned of DDCA”.

These include “minutes of the meeting/minute book of the general body meetings of the official concerned of DDCA between the years 1999 and December 2014” and “minute book for the executive committee/board of directors between the years 1999 to December 2014”. “That no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff (Jaitley) in case, the present application is allowed. However, the defendants (Kejriwal and other AAP leaders) will suffer deeply in case the same is dismissed,” the application said.

The court could “pass an order summoning the officer concerned from DDCA with the documents/records…,” it said.
When the court asked the Centre’s standing counsel, Amit Mahajan, whether he had any objections to the application, he said it was filed under the wrong provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP).

He said the application was filed under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CCP, according to which the list of witnesses had to be provided to the court in advance for summoning of records. The application had to be filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of the CCP, which was the correct provision for summoning of records from a third party, Mahajan said, adding that all other objections would be mentioned in the reply.

Video of the day

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

    Live Cricket Scores & Results