HC strikes out `irrelevant’ parts

Justice S K Mahajan ruled that allegations quoted in at least 17 paragraphs of the plaint are not only “unnecessary and irrelevant” for the purpose of the present suit but also tend to prejudice and embarrass the fair trial of the suit. “I, therefore, direct paragraphs 2, 9-13, 15, 22-27, 35 and 37 to be struck out from the plaint,” the judge ruled.

The judge, however, allowedLekhi to file an amended petition within one week and fixed the case for further hearing on August 25. The admissibility of the amended plaint would be decided thereafter.

The court raised serious objections to the petitioner making several references about the personal lives of national leaders like Sanjay Gandhi and Dr Sharma.

The order said, “The court, if it is to entertain the present suit, is only to decide as to whether the trust (RGF) of which Congress president Sonia Gandhi is the chairperson was being mismanaged in the manner which so requires the interference of the court. Events made in the plaint dating back to the time of great grandfather of Rajiv Gandhi, in my opinion are not relevant for deciding matters in the present controversy.”

The judge said the allegations were not only wholly “unnecessary” but appeared to have been made to embarrass the defendents — Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Vadra, Dr Sharma and Bachchan among others — which cannot be permitted by thecourt.

The judge dropped his earlier observation that the allegations were “scandalous” in nature, made while reserving the judgement on Aug 5.The judge said though the court should not dictate to the petitioners how to frame their case, the rule is subject to the modifications and limitations that the party is not offended. And if a party introduces a pleading which is unnecessary and tends to prejudice, embarrass and delay fair trial, it then become a motivated pleading.

About the allegations against the former president, Justice Mahajan observed that the court even if it were to try the suit will not investigate the question as to whether Dr Sharma had actively participated in political agitations during the British rule and his arrest in the freedom movement. “These allegations in my view have no relevancy whatsoever to the matter in dispute in the present suit,” the judge opined.

This court, the judge said, would also not investigate as to whether Jawaharlal Nehru did not earn from the practiceof law or whether Motilal Nehru did not like his son to become a wholetimer of the Indian National Congress.

Whether there was a tussle between the father and the son before Nehru became president of the INC in 1929 was also not a question relevant for the present suit, the order said adding that same goes with the allegation that Indira Gandhi had written a letter to Sanjay Gandhi asking him to pay the amount of rent to the landlady and the allegation that Rajiv Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi were not in a very good financial position during their stay in London. “These are also not relevant for the present suit and are in my view wholly unnecessary,” he observed.

Without hearing arguments on the maintainability of the petition, the judge had on August 5, said certain passages in the plaint, deserved to be deleted on being either “unnecessary or scandalous”.

Lekhi wanted that notices on the petition be issued without considering the “objectionable” parts of the plaint. However, Justice Mahajan hadrefused to oblige saying that till the “unnecessary and scandalous” remarks about the leaders was deleted and an amended petition filed, he would not hear any arguments on the maintainability of the petition.