Delhi High Court Declines Plea Of BJP's Sanju Verma To Reject Defamation Case Filed By Congress' Shama Mohamed

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application filed by BJP spokesperson Sanju Verma seeking rejection of a defamation suit filed against her by Congress spokesperson Shama Mohamed.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that there was no ground to reject the plaint and that the issues raised by Verma pertained to matters that are to be examined during Trial and cannot form the basis for rejection of the plaint.

Verma sought rejection of the plaint contending that no cause of action had arisen for Mohamed to institute the civil suit.

It was submitted that Mohamed is a resident of Kerala. As per Verma, while the memo of parties said that Mohamed is a resident of Delhi, the affidavit executed indicated that she is a resident of Kerala.

It was contended that the glaring inconsistencies in the pleadings were wholly unacceptable and rendered Mohamed's case untenable.

Rejecting the application, the Court noted that a bare perusal of the plaint would indicate that the cause of action arose on August 20 last year when Verma made the alleged defamatory statements against Mohamed on a show organized by Network 18 news channel.

It further noted that as per the plaint, the debate was shared by various third parties containing the alleged defamatory statements against Mohamed on the social media platforms operated by C Corp (formerly Twitter) and Google LLC.

“…it appears the plaint on the face of it fulfils the necessary ingredients of the pleading as required under Order VI and Order VII Rule 1(e) of the CPC. Additionally, the communications which have been placed on record would prima facie indicate that the third parties had began to share the said defamatory statement against the plaintiff,” the Court said.

It concluded that the cause of action had arisen for Mohamed to institute the civil suit for defamation and that the Congress leader is a resident of Delhi itself.

“On the purported inconsistency with respect to the contents of the plaint and the affidavit of the plaintiff, the same seems to be that the plaintiff has residences both in Delhi and in Kerala and that the affidavit mentioned both. But when the affidavit is considered in the right perspective, the same also mentions that the plaintiff also resides at Delhi. Additionally, the plaintiff has also brought on record various documents including the lease deed etc. to indicate that the plaintiff is residing in Delhi,” the Court said.

Justice Kaurav also observed that prima facie, the ingredients for invoking the territorial jurisdiction of the Court were met, as Mohamed had asserted her residence within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and the potential damage to her reputation was made.

Observing that Mohamed was entitled to institute the present suit in Delhi, the Court said:

“If the defendants seek to establish that the maximum damage occurred elsewhere, that the plaintiff is in fact resident outside Delhi, or that the cause of action arose where any of the primary defendants reside, such contentions may be raised and adjudicated during the course of Trial, including by way of preliminary issues, if so permitted. At stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a full fledged mini-trial cannot be started by the Court that would transcend the well-established civil law principles of procedure dealing with the civil suits.”

Counsel for Plaintiff: Mr. Abhik Chimni, Mr. Omar Hoda, Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Ms. Pranjal Abrol and Mr. Gurupal Singh, Advs

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Raghav Awasthi, Ms. Simran Brar and Mr. Fatehh Singh Majithia, Advs for D-1; Mr. Mrinal Bharti, Mr. Santosh Kumar and Mr. Swapnil Srivastava, Advs for D-2; Mr. Deepak Gogia, Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal and Ms. Shivangi Kohli, Advs for D-3; Mr. Neel Mason, Ms. Pragya Jain and Ms. Surabhii Katare, Advs for D-4

Title: DR SHAMA MOHAMED v. SMT SANJU VERMA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1125

Click here to read order