In The Court of Fouth Addl District Judge Kadapa

 

 

IN THE COURT OF FOUTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE KADAPA

I.A No:-1471/201 No:-1471/2017 7 In O.S No:- 43/2017 M.Bhargavi

...Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs.

1.Smt.G.Aruna@Harini 2.M.Ramajaneya Reddy 3.K.Venkata Reddy

...Respondents /Defendants

Counter filed on behalf of the Responden Respondents/Defendants ts/Defendants 2 and 3 1.This petition is unjust and not at all maintainable either in law or on facts. 2.The Petitioner is put to strict proof on all tthe he allegations made in the rejoinder which are not expressly admitted herein by these respondents. The writer statement of these defendants 1 to 3 may kindly be read as part and parcel of this counter. 3.This rejoinder of this petitioner is not prepared as per the instructions of the petitioner. Some interested third party went to Hyderabad and a got it prepared as per whims and fancies of the third party. The petitioner did not give such false and purely illegal insrtuetions to her councel appearing on her behalf in this suit at present for filing this type of totally false and unwarranted rejoinder without the knowledge of the advocate on the record of the suit of the plaintiff at present. 4.The petitioner made all the irrelevant and false allegations in her suit against the respondents 2 and 3. So there is on necessity to file this rejoinder by repeating the same false allegations in this rejoinder. The subsequent pleadings arise only when there is a new fact is pleaded in the writters statement apart from the facts of the case pleaded either in the suit pliant or in the written statement. 5.The councel who prepared the rejoinder is thinking that all the facts in the written statement are afterthought. How can that councel who prepared the rejoinder knows that it is after thought or before thought to write pleadings as per the instructions of the parties to the suit or proceedings. The

 

 

first defendant in her writer statement pleaded in Telugu language that she instructed her advocates to prepare pleadings in T.O.P No:-339/2016 and counter in D.O.P No:-20/2016 as per ner instructions. The couneel of the petitioner wanted the advocates of the first defendant what is not instructed to her advocates which will be helpfull to the petitioner and against the interests of the first defendant. The councel who prepared the rejoinder of the petitioner wanted the advocates of the first defendant to write which are not instructed by the first defendant in order to help the petitioner. The councel of the petitioner is not tracing the truth in the facts of the first defendant raised in T.O.P No:-339/2016 and Counter in D.O.P No:-20/2016 but he is simply saying that it would the tell-tale aspet. Does the counsel of the petitioner is practinig his profession by making tell-tale allegations against the interests of his client bye-passing the interests of his client beyond the instructions of his client in order to help to his opponents. 6.The respondents did not make any fresh plcadings in T.O.P No:339/2016 and counter in D.O.P No:-20/2016 which are not pleaded in M.C No:8/2013. The illicit intimacy o off the plaintiff with Chandras Chandrasekhar ekhar Reddy, joint preparing for group II examinations and other facts are pleaded in the M.C No:-8/2013 by the advocate of the first defendant practing at Rajampeta. The petitioner should be ready for virgin test by all Indian medical council at Delhi if the petitioner wants to disprove the pleadings of the first defendant. The truth cannot by hidden by filing this type of false rejoinder withont facing virgin test. The pleadings of the parties to the suit or legal procedings cannot come under defamation as per section 499 of I.P.C. The averment should be made in the form of pleadings for establishing the truth by way evidences and medical report. The councel of the petitioner feels every word is defamatory and liable for claiming damages. At this rate no pleadings can be made against the party to the suit or proceedings as per the councel of the petitioner who drafted the rejoinder of the petitioner. The person who wants to claim damags should stand for medical scrutiny and other forms of evidence for establishing her false claim of rupees one crore damages.

 

 

7.The allegations made in para 13 of the rejoinder are far away from the truth. For instance if any person seolds a begger or penniless person, does he claim lakhs or crores of rupees towards damages for defaming him by scolding that beggar or penniless person. The petitioner who does not know difference between girl and woman but she is chaiming one crore rupees towards damages for simple allegation that she has illicit intimacy with her collegue named chandrasekhar Reddy.There are no merits in this application and this petitioner filed this false and vexatious petition with malafide intention by hiding the truth. 8.These respondents 2 and 3 did not attack the reputation of the petititoner at any point of time. The petitioner did not state even in the rejoinder about the names, address and places where and when the plaintiff was defamed and who spoke about those defamatory statement. The petitioner is sailing in the wind without mentioning the names and addresses and places where she suffered defamation. How does the facts made in T.O.P No:-339/2016 and counter in D.O.P No:-20/2016 are defamatory when the plaintiff utterly failed to give names of the collegues and friends before whom she suffered defamation. The respondants are not attacking the character of the petitioner. But the petitioner and her concel are attacking the whole advocates profession and Advocates Act of 1961. 9.The professional communications between the advocate the and client are privileged communications as per section 126 of Evildence Act since those pleadings are made with bonafide intention to safe guard the interests of his client on the instructions of the client that is first defendant. The responds 2 and 3 have duty to safeguard the interties of his client and not to help to the opposite party by writing pleading in support of the case of the opposite party by betraing the interests of his client. It seens that the counsel who prepared this rejoinder has more responsibility to help to his opponent rather than defending his own client by causing loss and in justice to his client . 10.The allegations made made in pare 18 the rejoinder are totally faclse faclse and in vented for the purpose of this false suit of the plaintiff. It is too much to the

 

 

councel who wrote rejoinder to state that the defendants 2 and 3 and that the defamatory allegations made in the suit plaint are the words were clearly originated from D-2 and D-3 and that D-2 and D-3 of liable for lebel. The advocate who drafted the rejoinder is personally liable for making personal attack on the advocates and advocates Act and that advocate is liable for criminal prosecution and civil suit is to be filed against him for damages for making such irresponsible and false and baseless allegations against the reputed and senior advocates appearing for the first defendant who filed T.O.P No:-339/2016 and counter in D.O.P No:-20/2016. There is no truth in the allegfatins made in the rejoinder of the petitioner. This rejoinder of purely meant to defame the advocates at large and that rejoinder is against the provisions of Advocates Act and the procedure established by law. 10 (A).

A close reading of the plaint and rejoinder it is clearly

establishes that one advocate practicing at Hyderabad who belongs to Kadapa District and some groups of advocates at Kadapa are having personal animosity, jealousy, enmity etc. in the profession ageist the defendants 2 and 3 who are directly unable to came to picture to file vakalat in OS No:-43/2017 and rejoinder 1471/2017 are playing this mischiefs game by personally attacking the respondent 2 and 3 in this case and filing the suit plaint and rejoinder through some advocate who is unknown about the pleadings in OS No:- 43/2017 and pleadings in the rejoinder without knowing the consequences criminal prosecutions and suit for damages that are going to be taken by the respondents 2 and 3 for

making personal attack on the

respondent-Defendants 2 and 3 inspite of clear cut pleading made by the first defendant, first respondent in her written statement as well as in I.A No:1200/2017.   It is clearly mentioned in M.C Ni:08/2013 that the fact of illicit intimacy of plaintiff with chandrasekher Reddy was mentioned in M.C No:08/2013 by the advocate of the first defendant named Sri.Nusruddin of Rajampeta on the ffile ile of J.F.C.M court at Rajampet Rajampeta. a. There no whisper or allegation against Sri.Nasuruddin advocate of Rajampetra who prepared M.C No:-8/2013

petitioner

alleging

illicit

intimacy

of

the

plaintiff

with

 

 

Chandrasekher Reddy. It Reveals and given strength to contention of the respondents-defendants 2 and 3 that there it conspiracy, jealousy, and enmity in making personal attack on the advocates who are defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.

11.Therefour the defendant 2 and 3 pray that the Honorable Court may be pleased to dismiss this rejoinder petitioner in the interest of  justice.

Advocate